|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 18, 2009 6:54:01 GMT -6
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. Welcome Insider - we appreciate your insight....and I am in agreement. Hindsight is 20/20 on actions,and even when it comes to the M2 statement - she knew ahead of time she would not get a second yet went forward anyway. I am disappointed n no second- I thought there might be one.. |
|
SouthernWolf
Junior
Dean Wermer; when is the parade?
Posts: 139
|
Post by SouthernWolf on Mar 18, 2009 10:52:09 GMT -6
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. Sickeing. makes me ill. When the final 3 come up for reelection; I wish more of this back room stuff (hide/delay data from certain board members and the public etc) will come out and sitting board members from this period in D204 up for reelection in 2011 get a chance to "explain themselves" and there reasons "why" Dr. Who; I want to know why all this has been done. There has got to be a reason (or several?). Nobody with a pulse would not at least take pause and a relook based on on this data coming in. It cant be all about socio eneneering. There has to be some other concrete reasons as to why ignore the enrollment #'s. Dr. Who; cae to offer up any conjecture as to what those additional reasons might be? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 18, 2009 13:03:15 GMT -6
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. Sickeing. makes me ill. When the final 3 come up for reelection; I wish more of this back room stuff (hide/delay data from certain board members and the public etc) will come out and sitting board members from this period in D204 up for reelection in 2011 get a chance to "explain themselves" and there reasons "why" Dr. Who; I want to know why all this has been done. There has got to be a reason (or several?). Nobody with a pulse would not at least take pause and a relook based on on this data coming in. It cant be all about socio eneneering. There has to be some other concrete reasons as to why ignore the enrollment #'s. Dr. Who; cae to offer up any conjecture as to what those additional reasons might be? I ask that anyone who read this please understand up front - not my views on WV etc - just what I observed over the last 4 years of being involved,a dn 20 years of living here I believe a lot of it started with some misguided effort to 'save' Waubonsie. Save from what I never quite understood as my oldest daughter went there and loved it, and it would still be my firs choice today. However I had conversations with a number of people including SB members who were convinced that the years of bashing from some people over being the poor sister of the 2 high schools was somehow founded. It was mentioned several times how they were trying to 're-make' WVHS. Why? That's my question? When they finally put some money into a 20 year older powerplant a few years ago it did wonders for the school - and was badly needed at the time, but who neglected it before that ? The same people riding to the rescue now. This was highlighted when as have mentioned before - myself and a number of neighbors and our kids attended a HS orientation meeting in the WVHS gym ( class of 2012) and the booster club president there proceeds to tell everyone that with the changing of boundaries for who attends, and the 'new blood' how their booster club was now going to be able to compete more directly with Neuqua Valley. Well needless to say we were stunned as we from Watts were basically being told- now that you're gone and we have White Eagle and Fry that the $$ inequities were over. It was so hurtful for those of us who supported this school our whole lives I can't tell you. We immediately as a group sought out school admin afterwards to complain. One basically didn't listen at all- and Rudy Keller told us how much we'd be missed and thought the comment was unfortunate. What's funny is that in all the years I had heard some parents complain that NV somehow had more 'stuff' than WV - but never heard it from one single student - ever. The WinD204 group was mindset to fix ISAT inequities and other perceived inequities in who attended what school as well. Take a close look at the former Option 6 in the original boundary plans and it is real close to what we ended up with. I now believe the 3rd HS was the attempt to fix a reputation as well as maybe NCLB more than a need. There is also a group that has complained for almost all of the 20 years I've been here - when WE were the south, about how they build all these schools and they had the oldest ones. Then when NV was built - holy heck broke loose because they wanted 'their Neuqua' - a phrase which came up again before the land switch. I don't claim to understand the thought process as I've been here 20 years and paid for most of the schools and never had any issue with Neuqua whatsoever. Nice school - and the home school that many people have as much pride in as I did for Waubonsie. I totally get that part. Throw in some unfortunate - what seems to be jealousy ( hence the elitist - entitled comments )- and you have the makings for the mess we have today. Where everyone falls into the game I will leave for you to determine. I can only tell you what I have observed and experienced. Some areas get more grease for their squeaky wheels than others. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Mar 18, 2009 13:05:25 GMT -6
Any truth to the rumor that Daeschner gets a bonus farewell to bump his retirement if MV opens in 2009?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 18, 2009 13:07:24 GMT -6
Any truth to the rumor that Daeschner gets a bonus farewell to bump his retirement if MV opens in 2009? you're assuming he is leaving - all he needs is a 2 year extension agreed to ( say in exec session) to qualify for an Illinois pension. Is his contract FOIA able ? Wheaton I believe is finding that this is a gray area as it has been deemed personnel file related by some levels of courts. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 18, 2009 13:17:48 GMT -6
Any truth to the rumor that Daeschner gets a bonus farewell to bump his retirement if MV opens in 2009? Well if the Wheaton Warrenville D200 lawsuit is an indication, it will take a long time to FOIA. www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=279437&src=In District 200, the fight is over the five-year contract of then-Superintendent Gary Catalani, who's moved on to a job in Scottsdale, Ariz. At the time of the January 2006 request Catalani was Illinois' highest paid superintendent with a base salary of $306,000. Wheaton resident Mark Stern, then a school board candidate, asked for access to the contract under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act and was told the contract was part of Catalani's personnel file and was exempt from the law.
Stern went to court after District 200 twice disregarded opinions from the Illinois attorney general's office that the contract was public information and should be released. But a DuPage County judge ruled for the school district, saying the contract was private because it was kept in Catalani's personnel file. An appellate court reversed that, saying the contract should be released but with any private information removed or blacked out.
So on to the Illinois Supreme Court, which can be expected to rule in several months. Sorry, back to CV............ |
|
|
|
Post by rodman on Mar 18, 2009 16:58:18 GMT -6
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. This has been an interesting thread. I was surprised by Doc's mention of proof of a northern site as far back as 2005 and the comment about the magnet school. There was a document put together by one board member that evaluated the sites - some seriously and others not so much - that included some northern sites, but that's the only thing I can really recall. Of course, the AME site was one that was not seriously considered at that time because the church leadership was adamant about not selling. In terms of the magnet school, I think I was the only one who voiced much support for the concept, but that was in terms of having a smaller third high school. I do not recall any talk of turning WV into a magnet school. The only thing I can remember is some discussion of having the high schools specialize in certain aspects of the vocational education program. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 18, 2009 17:04:09 GMT -6
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. This has been an interesting thread. I was surprised by Doc's mention of proof of a northern site as far back as 2005 and the comment about the magnet school. There was a document put together by one board member that evaluated the sites - some seriously and others not so much - that included some northern sites, but that's the only thing I can really recall. Of course, the AME site was one that was not seriously considered at that time because the church leadership was adamant about not selling. In terms of the magnet school, I think I was the only one who voiced much support for the concept, but that was in terms of having a smaller third high school. I do not recall any talk of turning WV into a magnet school. The only thing I can remember is some discussion of having the high schools specialize in certain aspects of the vocational education program. the map from 2005 shows 2 'northern campusus' neither of which are AME site - the reference to WVHS is in a November 2005 SD powerpoint presentation and it caught me off guard that WVHS was called out as becoming the magnet school. This was all dropped before the 2006 ref vote. The only reason there was little to no support for a magnet school concept is because we were 'sold' 10,400 students instead of 8400 or 8800 as the previous committees had determined. Where oh where to put those extra 2000 students ? Little did we know - or else a magnet might have been a nice alternative for those who still feel we might need more seats. We didn't need 3000 more. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 23, 2009 13:00:43 GMT -6
www.dailyherald.com/news/politics/elections/2009/race/candidates/?id=707&candidate=991Unit D204 board member Christine M Vickers Incumbent: Yes Occupation: IT Manager/paralegal Age: 46 Address: Aurora, IL CANDIDATE INFORMATION Family Husband: Harry; sons: Harry, Paul and Stephen Education/degrees Graduated 1981. Began my professional training in the legal profession immediately upon graduation 29 years ago. Elected/appointed offices held Elected 2005 Indian Prairie School District Unit #204, Member, Board of Education Other Government services Committeeman, City of Aurora Ward #10, Aurora, Illinois Candidate's Key Issues Key Issue 1 Increasing Academic Achievement for all students and creating lifelong learners capable of competing in a global marketplace Key Issue 2 Fiscal Responsibility Key Issue 3 Rebuilding of trust between the School Board and Community through Open, Honest, Transparent Government Processes Questions & Answers Answers provided have not been edited for grammar, misspellings or typos. In some instances, candidate claims that could not be immediately verified have been omitted. 1. What is the most important issue facing Indian Prairie Unit District 204 and how specifically would you address it as a member of the school board? The most important issue is providing quality education to the students in our district. I am addressing this now as a current board member by supporting recommended academic goals, targets, and strategic implementation plans that will increase academic achievement for all students. 2. The district is negotiating a new teachers contract this year. Do you believe teachers should continue to get raises in this economy? If so, what percentage do you think is fair (counting step increases)? Considering the dire economic conditions we face globally, nationally, statewide and locally, many of us are fortunate to maintain our full time employment status at this time. These conditions, coupled with the recently released, all-time low Consumer Price Index number that will be utilized as the district's property tax rate for the 2010-11, will significantly impact revenue received by the district. State funding lags behind and also remains an unsure guarantee. All this considered, I believe it would be prudent to take a conservative approach by withholding the award of any salary increases for staff at this time. In my opinion it would be appropriate to readdress wage increases at a future date when economic stability returns. 3. The economic downturn will put a strain on District 204's budget. What specific ideas do you have for increasing revenue or cutting spending? As indicated, with CPI at its all time low, this essentially means the district's property tax revenue will remain flat at best. I do not believe anyone has the power to change this situation. That said, the only option left is to reduce spending. Staff salaries attribute to 80% of the district's budget. At a minimum, you would maintain status quo on wages at this time to conserve for the future. It would also be prudent to review the remaining 20% of the budget for any discretionary spending that would not adversely affect students and the classroom. 4. How can the district improve its curriculum to ensure students are prepared for college and/or the workforce? We are actually already taking a proactive approach to prepare students for college and the workforce. I recently supported initiatives that will increase rigor in the classroom. I support the implementation of a value-added comprehensive site-based plan to improve each academic success for all students through continuous improvement targets as measured by state assessments, the ACT sequence (Explore, Plan, ACT) and/or other appropriate assessment instruments, including local assessments. To increase rigor, we will require all students to complete an Algebra course by the end of 8th Grade as well as complete three high school science credits. Students will take at least one on-line, dual credit or Advanced Placement course. All K-12 students will be provided a technology skill curriculum and a life-skill/global understanding curriculum tied to the state social/emotional standards, embedded in academic courses. I believe these new targets and initatives will help ensure college and workforce preparedness for our students. 5. If you are an incumbent, outline your three major contributions to the school board. If you are a challenger, outline the three contributions you hope to make during your first term. I believe my voting record and board practices stand on their own. I have shown that I am fiscally responsible by opposing costly initiatives that lacked adequate facts and/or documentation to garner my support. I have shown respect to the public by listening and responding in a professional and open manner. I have shown integrity and honesty with the public by explaining the rationale behind my positions and decisions whether popular or unpopular during some of the most contentious battles and issues I have witnessed during the history of this district. Most importantly, I have been an advocate for initiatives that will improve achievement for all students. If re-elected, I will continue to promote integrity, honest, transparency, respect and quality education.
|
|
|
|
Post by concerned2 on Mar 27, 2009 15:45:29 GMT -6
RE-ELECT CHRISTINE VICKERS ON APRIL 7, 2009 PUNCH #4 www.christinevickers.comDear Friends, Neighbors and District 204 Family: I hope this finds you and your families well. As you are no doubt aware, the election season is upon us and my fposition on the District 204 School Board is about to expire. Where did the time go??!!! Yes, it was four years ago on April 5, 2005, you entrusted me in a very important role as your representative on the School Board. I have not taken this responsibility lightly. Words cannot adequately express the sincere gratitude I have for you in allowing me to serve in this capacity. It has been an honor and privilege to serve you, your children, the taxpayers, and our community. As you may also know, I am seeking re-election to the District 204 School Board on APRIL 7, 2009! I am passionate about our community, our children and education in Indian Prairie District #204. Thanks to all of you who have provided me much support, strength, and encouragement during some of the most contentious times in the history of this district. Although I may have been a lone voice during some of these times on differing issues at the board table, it is you, through written or verbal communication that have assured me I am not alone in my views. Regrettably, some have labeled me a contrarian for my independence. However, many of you know that’s just not the case. You know I respect and cherish my right to free thought and speech and that I have high personal and business standards. I in turn value and respect your rights in this regard as well. I am grounded in my own morals, values and beliefs whether in majority or minority. I am not predisposed to taking opposing positions on a whim. I believe I am open minded and fair basing my decisions on facts, and/or the lack thereof, with consideration and weight given to public opinion. For me, it is a matter of conducting due diligence as well as doing what one believes, based on what is heard and seen, is in the best interest of our children, their education, our tax dollars and our community. I would be humbled and honored for your continued support during this campaign season. I will continue to uphold my standards as well as promote and represent the quality standards our community expects in elected school board officials--Integrity, Independent Thinking, Transparency, Openness, Fiscal Responsibility & Quality Education! Please feel free to pass this to your friends, family, neighbors and coworkers—the best advertisement for me comes from you! Have a wonderful day and an enjoyable Spring Break. PLEASE VOTE ON APRIL 7, 2009!! YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT SO MAKE IT COUNT!! With sincere appreciation, respect and thankfulness, Christine Vickers 3/26/09 www.christinevickers.com PUNCH #4 ON APRIL 7, 2009 |
|
|
|
Post by insider on Mar 27, 2009 18:09:07 GMT -6
RE-ELECT CHRISTINE VICKERS ON APRIL 7, 2009 PUNCH #4 www.christinevickers.comDear Friends, Neighbors and District 204 Family: I hope this finds you and your families well. As you are no doubt aware, the election season is upon us and my position on the District 204 School Board is about to expire. Where did the time go??!!! Yes, it was four years ago on April 5, 2005, you entrusted me in a very important role as your representative on the School Board. I have not taken this responsibility lightly. Words cannot adequately express the sincere gratitude I have for you in allowing me to serve in this capacity. It has been an honor and privilege to serve you, your children, the taxpayers, and our community. As you may also know, I am seeking re-election to the District 204 School Board on APRIL 7, 2009! I am passionate about our community, our children and education in Indian Prairie District #204. Thanks to all of you who have provided me much support, strength, and encouragement during some of the most contentious times in the history of this district. Although I may have been a lone voice during some of these times on differing issues at the board table, it is you, through written or verbal communication that have assured me I am not alone in my views. Regrettably, some have labeled me a contrarian for my independence. However, many of you know that’s just not the case. You know I respect and cherish my right to free thought and speech and that I have high personal and business standards. I in turn value and respect your rights in this regard as well. I am grounded in my own morals, values and beliefs whether in majority or minority. I am not predisposed to taking opposing positions on a whim. I believe I am open minded and fair basing my decisions on facts, and/or the lack thereof, with consideration and weight given to public opinion. For me, it is a matter of conducting due diligence as well as doing what one believes, based on what is heard and seen, is in the best interest of our children, their education, our tax dollars and our community. I would be humbled and honored for your continued support during this campaign season. I will continue to uphold my standards as well as promote and represent the quality standards our community expects in elected school board officials--Integrity, Independent Thinking, Transparency, Openness, Fiscal Responsibility & Quality Education! Please feel free to pass this to your friends, family, neighbors and coworkers—the best advertisement for me comes from you! Have a wonderful day and an enjoyable Spring Break. PLEASE VOTE ON APRIL 7, 2009!! YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT SO MAKE IT COUNT!! With sincere appreciation, respect and thankfulness, Christine Vickers 3/26/09 www.christinevickers.com PUNCH #4 ON APRIL 7, 2009 |
|
) , 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) - 