Christine Vickers

[admin]

[twhl]

www.204vickers.com/

[we4]

Christine really did earn a whole lot of respect from me for taking a stand at the school board meeting.

I haven't started the process of researching the candidates so I have no idea who has what out there yet, but I hope CV will put enough out there for me to vote for her.

[macy]

quote author=macy board=sbct09 thread=2320 post=57788 time=1237350738]

Mar 17, 2009 15:51:40 GMT -6 kidsfirst said:

You seem to be a minority regarding CV. I am curious to know why she is barely mentioned around here. That is really surprising. She has disagreed from day 1 with the 3rd HS. She has been the only one calling for MM to resign. She has experience being on the board.

Why this group of 4? I hear the praises from you guys regarding this group but nothing about them individually except Doug. What are the other three's merits? I would love to hear more about them individually. Why do I have to vote for these 4? Why aren't most of you endorsing CV plus 3 others from the slate? Again, it's actions like this that make me wonder why this group is running as a foursome and what agenda do they have? I don't want another MM and his rubberstamping puppets. I have heard Doug is another MM with a different agenda and different puppets. Is that why you all like them? Agendas and rubberstamping are OK as long as you agree with the agenda? I really hope I am reading too much into this but I haven't heard much about this group as individuals. So enlighten me, please. I would think that the blue board would be the last group to endorse a slate. Open up another thread though as I don't mean to highjack this one since it's about MR.


ETA: Wow, just looked at the individual SB candidate threads. There are as many comments about Janey Wagner as there are about Jerry Huang.

I have a lot of respect for CV. However, I lost a bit of that respect the day she voted on the location of the third school (last year) after abstaining from previous votes regarding Metea or related boundaries. She was on the record again and again and again against a third high school until the location was decided. That was shocking to me.

Why after years of opposition to the third high school would she suddenly say "it's time" and be in agreement?

[researching]

Mar 17, 2009 22:40:39 GMT -6 macy said:

quote author=macy board=sbct09 thread=2320 post=57788 time=1237350738]

Mar 17, 2009 15:51:40 GMT -6 kidsfirst said:

You seem to be a minority regarding CV. I am curious to know why she is barely mentioned around here. That is really surprising. She has disagreed from day 1 with the 3rd HS. She has been the only one calling for MM to resign. She has experience being on the board.

Why this group of 4? I hear the praises from you guys regarding this group but nothing about them individually except Doug. What are the other three's merits? I would love to hear more about them individually. Why do I have to vote for these 4? Why aren't most of you endorsing CV plus 3 others from the slate? Again, it's actions like this that make me wonder why this group is running as a foursome and what agenda do they have? I don't want another MM and his rubberstamping puppets. I have heard Doug is another MM with a different agenda and different puppets. Is that why you all like them? Agendas and rubberstamping are OK as long as you agree with the agenda? I really hope I am reading too much into this but I haven't heard much about this group as individuals. So enlighten me, please. I would think that the blue board would be the last group to endorse a slate. Open up another thread though as I don't mean to highjack this one since it's about MR.


ETA: Wow, just looked at the individual SB candidate threads. There are as many comments about Janey Wagner as there are about Jerry Huang.

I have respect for CV. However, I lost a bit of that respect the day she voted on the location of the third school (last year) after abstaining from previous votes regarding Metea or related boundaries. She was on the record again and again and again against a third high school until the location was decided. That was shocking to me.

Why after years of opposition to the third high school would she suddenly say "it's time" and be in agreement?

Ditto for me Macy. The flip CV did still has me confused. I've heard she justified it with "the people voted for a 3rd High School...yada yada yada". Flimsy excuse at best.

CV redeemed herself a bit IMO when she publically chastised M2 about his inexcusable email but that still does not explain why she gave the green light on the ridiculous location for MV.

[insider]

First post, occasional reader. First time I felt a need to respond because I have been about as close as you can get (and I don't mean by reading the loose newspaper accounts of our district happenings).
If you are referring to preelection statement in DH, at that time she was 75% sure of no need for the 3rd hs based on the information she obtained thru the referendum committee. She was reluctant to state 100% surety because not every piece of the puzzle had been delivered by the district (the district ignored and refused to provide the additional information she sought to completely solidfy her position ex. architectual building capacity studies and designated use of space in the district).
If you are referring to Jan. 22 '08 vote to move forward with the 3rd high school and purchase of MWGEN and AME, she made a clear distinction at that time she was doing so SOLELY ON THE WILL OF THE VOTERS! She said it loud and clear, no mistake. Voters wanted a high school and voters wanted the district to buy land. It was a hard thing for her and against her better judgement knowing what she did but she did PER THE MANDATE OF THE VOTERS (knowing and remembering the voters in 2005 GAVE HER A MANDATE TO STAND AGAINST THE 3RD HIGH SCHOOL AND AGAINST STATUS QUO!!)
She did not vote from AME. On Jan. 22 '08 she voted in support of directing the administration to begin negotiations on MWGEN AND AME, as directed by the voters. Recall this was PRIOR to receipt of the environmental study. There is some controversy as to whether or not the land was contaminated enough to matter and although minimized by the district, the fact was it was contaminated enough that if the EPA had ever had a chance to get their mitts on it, it would have been in need of some serious remediation. Knowing this, she would not have supported the MWGEN purchase WITHOUT FULL REMEDIATION! She would not put the taxpayers of the district in a situation of risk or exposure parking lot or not, nor allow a financial risk for any contamination issues left behind. At the time, the 35 acres of AME was contingent upon MWGEN agreement.
When MWGEN withdrew, and AME offered up their full acreage...well, we all know what she did after that: no due diligent appraisals for negotiating the monetary value of the land, she did the right thing by her convictions, alone or not, and on behalf of the taxpayers opposed the proposal.

[insider]

Footnote: In October 2008, she tried to get the SB to readdress the enrollment figures by comparing projected to actual bringing all the data back to the table. No dice. No one would listen, no one wanted to listen. She had no new information from the district to back her claims either at that time--nothing verbally and nothing in writing the cause was lost. Too bad the March 2008 enrollment projections weren't published earlier than January 2008 or maybe we wouldn't be here today. Intentional or coincidence? Don't know. I do know that if it weren't for CV, the public would have a lot less information and truths about the history of this transaction and other goings on in this district! And amazingly, after all that and who knows what it cost her to serve us, it still doesn't seem to be enough.

[southsidemom]

Mar 17, 2009 22:59:15 GMT -6 researching said:

Mar 17, 2009 22:40:39 GMT -6 macy said:

quote author=macy board=sbct09 thread=2320 post=57788 time=1237350738]

I have respect for CV. However, I lost a bit of that respect the day she voted on the location of the third school (last year) after abstaining from previous votes regarding Metea or related boundaries. She was on the record again and again and again against a third high school until the location was decided. That was shocking to me.

Why after years of opposition to the third high school would she suddenly say "it's time" and be in agreement?

Ditto for me Macy. The flip CV did still has me confused. I've heard she justified it with "the people voted for a 3rd High School...yada yada yada". Flimsy excuse at best.

CV redeemed herself a bit IMO when she publically chastised M2 about his inexcusable email but that still does not explain why she gave the green light on the ridiculous location for MV.

My problem is that CV does not seem to go the "long haul" in standing by her convictions. Ok, she read a statement regarding her position re: Mark stepping down. Did I hear a motion for his removal? So what if she did not get a 2nd....atleast she executed action instead of words. In the end she caved in respect to purchasing the AME land that no appraisal was completed. Just another of several errors in judgment she has demonstrated to me over the last couple years.

[insider]

First post, occasional reader. First time I felt a need to respond because I have been about as close as you can get (and I don't mean by reading the loose newspaper accounts of our district happenings).
If you are referring to preelection statement in DH, at that time she was 75% sure of no need for the 3rd hs based on the information she obtained thru the referendum committee. She was reluctant to state 100% surety because not every piece of the puzzle had been delivered by the district (the district ignored and refused to provide the additional information she sought to completely solidfy her position ex. architectual building capacity studies and designated use of space in the district).
If you are referring to Jan. 22 '08 vote to move forward with the 3rd high school and purchase of MWGEN and AME, she made a clear distinction at that time she was doing so SOLELY ON THE WILL OF THE VOTERS! She said it loud and clear, no mistake. Voters wanted a high school and voters wanted the district to buy land. It was a hard thing for her and against her better judgement knowing what she did but she did PER THE MANDATE OF THE VOTERS (knowing and remembering the voters in 2005 GAVE HER A MANDATE TO STAND AGAINST THE 3RD HIGH SCHOOL AND AGAINST STATUS QUO!!)
She did not vote from AME. On Jan. 22 '08 she voted in support of directing the administration to begin negotiations on MWGEN AND AME, as directed by the voters. Recall this was PRIOR to receipt of the environmental study. There is some controversy as to whether or not the land was contaminated enough to matter and although minimized by the district, the fact was it was contaminated enough that if the EPA had ever had a chance to get their mitts on it, it would have been in need of some serious remediation. Knowing this, she would not have supported the MWGEN purchase WITHOUT FULL REMEDIATION! She would not put the taxpayers of the district in a situation of risk or exposure parking lot or not, nor allow a financial risk for any contamination issues left behind. At the time, the 35 acres of AME was contingent upon MWGEN agreement.
When MWGEN withdrew, and AME offered up their full acreage...well, we all know what she did after that: no due diligent appraisals for negotiating the monetary value of the land, she did the right thing by her convictions, alone or not, and on behalf of the taxpayers opposed the proposal. Footnote: In October 2008, she tried to get the SB to readdress the enrollment figures by comparing projected to actual bringing all the data back to the table. No dice. No one would listen, no one wanted to listen. She had no new information from the district to back her claims either at that time--nothing verbally and nothing in writing the cause was lost. Too bad the March 2008 enrollment projections weren't published earlier than January 2008 or maybe we wouldn't be here today. Intentional or coincidence? Don't know. I do know that if it weren't for CV, the public would have a lot less information and truths about the history of this transaction and other goings on in this district! And amazingly, after all that and who knows what it cost her to serve us, it still doesn't seem to be enough.

[insider]

My problem is that CV does not seem to go the "long haul" in standing by her convictions. Ok, she read a statement regarding her position re: Mark stepping down. Did I hear a motion for his removal? So what if she did not get a 2nd....atleast she executed action instead of words. In the end she caved in respect to purchasing the AME land that no appraisal was completed. Just another of several errors in judgment she has demonstrated to me over the last couple years.

See above on hs issue. long haul? dealing with the hs and a consistent stance since 2004 isn't the long haul? again, she did not approve the purchase of AME on Jan. 08, but lacking any additional information from the board or the district to contradict a movement forward, she authorized the district to begin negotiations only at that point based only on 2006 mandate not because she had changed her opinion.

There is no legal or procedural recourse available to remove M2. She researched that. No go. The SB "voiced" their opinion by remaining silent, as good as a dead motion if you ask me even if she could have made one that would have stuck. Knowing full well she would again be alone, she stood by her convictions and on her personal behalf and on behalf of the taxpayers and the district, she did what she believed was the right thing again no matter what the price.

[Arch]

Mar 17, 2009 23:11:45 GMT -6 insider said:

Footnote: In October 2008, she tried to get the SB to readdress the enrollment figures by comparing projected to actual bringing all the data back to the table. No dice. No one would listen, no one wanted to listen. She had no new information from the district to back her claims either at that time--nothing verbally and nothing in writing the cause was lost. Too bad the March 2008 enrollment projections weren't published earlier than January 2008 or maybe we wouldn't be here today. Intentional or coincidence? Don't know. I do know that if it weren't for CV, the public would have a lot less information and truths about the history of this transaction and other goings on in this district! And amazingly, after all that and who knows what it cost her to serve us, it still doesn't seem to be enough.

Those enrollment projections (March 2008) were available within the Admin and SB prior to the April 14, 2008 vote to purchase AME, were they not? Probably yet another reason for the rush job to hurry up and buy it... "There was no time"

I applaud her for being the only one to vote the way she did on April 14, 2008 especially after the information that was handed to them and explained during public comment.

[SouthernWolf]

Mar 17, 2009 23:57:29 GMT -6 insider said:

My problem is that CV does not seem to go the "long haul" in standing by her convictions. Ok, she read a statement regarding her position re: Mark stepping down. Did I hear a motion for his removal? So what if she did not get a 2nd....atleast she executed action instead of words. In the end she caved in respect to purchasing the AME land that no appraisal was completed. Just another of several errors in judgment she has demonstrated to me over the last couple years.

See above on hs issue. long haul? dealing with the hs and a consistent stance since 2004 isn't the long haul? again, she did not approve the purchase of AME on Jan. 08, but lacking any additional information from the board or the district to contradict a movement forward, she authorized the district to begin negotiations only at that point based only on 2006 mandate not because she had changed her opinion.

There is no legal or procedural recourse available to remove M2. She researched that. No go. The SB "voiced" their opinion by remaining silent, as good as a dead motion if you ask me even if she could have made one that would have stuck. Knowing full well she would again be alone, she stood by her convictions and on her personal behalf and on behalf of the taxpayers and the district, she did what she believed was the right thing again no matter what the price.

Hello Insider!! Thanks so much for your input. very interesting stuff.

I dont think anyone would disagree that she has been a lone ranger in a sea of M2 groupies and I cant even imagine how rough that has been.

• The first ref in failed badly 40 to 60 (voter mandate) no location discussed
  
• The second ref passed by 60 to 40 (nearly a 20 point swing if my memory holds).
  
• Biggest difference IMO is the FUD the SB spread in the emails/web sites/backpack fliers trying to scare up votes for the 2nd crack at the ref.
  
  I would have liked to have seen a dissenting voice or at least a rather loud differing opinion during the SB/Admin sell job prior to the second ref. I know she was alone and didnt have much of a pulpit to spread the word (since the SB/Admin would never fund counter fliers to their FUD ;D
  
  Obviously she was proven correct.
  
  Not sure when the March 2008 updated enrollment projections you mentioned were released to the SB? I know it was well before it was released to the general public. Based on the phantom 2000 kids from the FUD report to the more realistic March 2008 report; dont you think hammering this info home to the rest of the board and disseminated out to the constituents would be prudent? To really stand by your convictions; wouldn't that be to propose (publicly at a board meeting) that we hold off on breaking ground on a 150 million project until this new data can be fully vetted within the board AND the Constituents? Probably would have still been a 6-1 vote to continue on no matter what the enrollment looks like, but at least it would have been on public record that the current sitting SB members decided to go ahead with a 150 M project with data showing it would not be necessary to do so. This is probably why no SB members involved with the 3rd HS (except Ms. Vickers) decided to run again. The only one with no conscience is M2 as I am sure he will run again in 2011 hoping everyone "forgets"

[Arch]

Fasttimes,

There were plenty of people who believed what the District was peddling that were willing and more than happy to do their duty and vilify those speaking out against the referendum as anti-kid, etc. Any dissenting voice was squashed by people believing they were doing the right thing... and luckily many woke up out of that nightmare and stopped drinking the KoolAid.

Also, just because the numbers are known to the Admin and some board members, don't assume for a moment all data is disseminated to every one of the board members at the same time.

[doctorwho]

Mar 17, 2009 23:11:45 GMT -6 insider said:

Footnote: In October 2008, she tried to get the SB to readdress the enrollment figures by comparing projected to actual bringing all the data back to the table. No dice. No one would listen, no one wanted to listen. She had no new information from the district to back her claims either at that time--nothing verbally and nothing in writing the cause was lost. Too bad the March 2008 enrollment projections weren't published earlier than January 2008 or maybe we wouldn't be here today. Intentional or coincidence? Don't know. I do know that if it weren't for CV, the public would have a lot less information and truths about the history of this transaction and other goings on in this district! And amazingly, after all that and who knows what it cost her to serve us, it still doesn't seem to be enough.

" I do know that if it weren't for CV, the public would have a lot less information and truths about the history of this transaction and other goings on in this district! "

I agree with this statement 100% -- and as far as the March enrollment data - was that EVER explained to the public by the SB - no. It would have remained hidden or at best a FOIA document

[doctorwho]

Mar 18, 2009 0:44:31 GMT -6 Arch said:

Mar 17, 2009 23:11:45 GMT -6 insider said:

Footnote: In October 2008, she tried to get the SB to readdress the enrollment figures by comparing projected to actual bringing all the data back to the table. No dice. No one would listen, no one wanted to listen. She had no new information from the district to back her claims either at that time--nothing verbally and nothing in writing the cause was lost. Too bad the March 2008 enrollment projections weren't published earlier than January 2008 or maybe we wouldn't be here today. Intentional or coincidence? Don't know. I do know that if it weren't for CV, the public would have a lot less information and truths about the history of this transaction and other goings on in this district! And amazingly, after all that and who knows what it cost her to serve us, it still doesn't seem to be enough.

Those enrollment projections (March 2008) were available within the Admin and SB prior to the April 14, 2008 vote to purchase AME, were they not? Probably yet another reason for the rush job to hurry up and buy it... "There was no time"

I applaud her for being the only one to vote the way she did on April 14, 2008 especially after the information that was handed to them and explained during public comment.

Everything has been a rush job to get things done before the public finds out information - whether it be to close on land without an appraisal because a cheaper land offer was on it's way to the Crouse Center that day, get the school started before people find out we don't need it , get it as built as possible before people find out the transportation hit we will take in order to fulfill the whims of the WinD204 socio-reengineering group now spread throughout our PTSA and IPPC ( however still busy writing ) , full speed ahead spend as much money as possible so the project can't be stopped, open it when the school is less than complete - same reason, announce the boundaries before people find out about secret sessions with some groups ( but people found out anyway) -
No one outside our district would ever believe the depth this has gone to..


all the while documents that show a northern site as far back as 2005 float around, documents that show when considering a magnet school - that magnet school was going to be Waubonsie Valley- not the new school -- why is the public kept in the dark on this stuff ? It's obvious why.

They also had info on approx where the land cost for BB would come in before the vote then too - it was kept under wraps until later and people told not to worry because our numbers were better than their numbers.