|
|
Post by researching on Apr 9, 2009 9:48:17 GMT -6
And let me add. that if the enrollment numbers don't materialize, the frosh center at NVHS closes, three 3000 student HSs go forward, and new boundaries. Does anyone else think it's odd that Springbrook voted number one for Piehl? They are Gregory attendees. Do they really like how the current board has handled their situation? Do they like what MM, supported by Piehl, called their neighbor? I don't think it's odd. I think it unfortunately reinforces my current opinion that when it comes down to it, nearly all in this district are ONLY interested in what is best for them. Period. Why in the world would that area give a rat's about someone elses experience with M2. They have what they want. Why would they care about a potentially unsafe site for a school their kids will never attend. What they do care about is that their babies will not be moved from NV. That's it. Some will sell their souls for that. As the parent of a NV freshman, soon to be a WV sophomore, let me tell you, what goes on at any other HS DEFINITELY goes on at NV. My child has had many experiences that I would have rather avoided during freshman year. My friends children have had to leave many a party due to alcohol and drugs being present. Sexual behavior is viewed casually by many students there. I find that I am having almost daily conversations about what is acceptible to our family and what is not due to the many students not making the best choices. So if some are under the delusion that NV is somehow the holy grail and that they can relax as parents when there kids get there, they would be wrong. NV is like ANY OTHER HS. ALL HS's face similar issues. Luckily NV has an amazing Principal like Bob McBride at the helm. I have said it again and again. I am so proud of my area. Fry area residents should hold their heads high for being upfront and "transparent". Even though we are possibly headed for more of the same, I would much rather be on the losing side of open honesty, than the winning side of fearful manipulations. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Apr 9, 2009 10:03:44 GMT -6
With all due respect, my decisions were solely based on who I thought was best suited for the positions. It had nothing to do with MM or anyone telling me who to vote for. I watched the interviews and read the candidates information. I was an informed voter not a puppet. Thanks for explaination of your vote. Not necessary but definitely interesting. As an informed voter, did you receive slanderous emails from the various PTSA/ PTA organizations regarding the slate of 4? How many slanderous emails did you receive from the slate of 4? So by voting for Cathy Piehl, do you support her stance that poor Mark Metzger just reacted to the mean old parents of this district by calling the father of a sexually assaulted 11 year old an MF'er? You voted for Sue Rasmus because of PTA experience. Again, did you read any of the slanderous emails sent by other Northern PTA Presidents? You said you voted for Dawn DeSart. By my count that's 3 not 4. Who was your 4th pick? Mark Rising? If so, you effectively voted for the unofficial slate of 4. That does not an educated voter make and I wasn't born yesterday. One more thing, if there isn't any split and everything is great, where do you live? ETA - Just an FYI, I didn't vote entirely for the slate of 4 either. I also did not vote for the unofficial slate. I TRULY became educated and voted thusly. I chose to separate myself from the rhetoric and voted my conscience. I wanted to vote for what was honestly best for the district, even if it wasn't best for my family individually. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Apr 9, 2009 10:30:48 GMT -6
With all due respect caliber, not one of them has the financial background needed to try and dig this district out of this mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 9, 2009 10:46:50 GMT -6
Personally, I thought there was ample PTA representation on the SB before April 7th. What we were sorely lacking was financial experience. Now, it seems like we may have to pay for the experience we could have gotten for free.
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Apr 9, 2009 10:46:55 GMT -6
With all due respect caliber, not one of them has the financial background needed to try and dig this district out of this mess. Seriously, a 250 million dollar annual budget can not be managed through bake sales and TV reporting experience. Some of these folks may be great to have on the board to round out perspective, but where is the business acumen. I actually would be scared to death to lose MM right now. He may be an aristocratic egomaniac, but is 1 of 2 people on the board who has any real business experience. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 9, 2009 10:51:18 GMT -6
Personally, I thought there was ample PTA representation on the SB before April 7th. What we were sorely lacking was financial experience. Now, it seems like we may have to pay for the experience we could have gotten for free. Oh they're very adept at spending money we don't have - that will not be an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 9, 2009 10:57:20 GMT -6
With all due respect, my decisions were solely based on who I thought was best suited for the positions. It had nothing to do with MM or anyone telling me who to vote for. I watched the interviews and read the candidates information. I was an informed voter not a puppet. If you voted for either of the 2 leading vote getters can you then share WHY with us ? What made them 'most qualified' to run a $270M operation , which is what this is ? I am really curious to understand that. As we face a severe financial crisis that is acknowledged by our SD as well as face a world consumed by economic issues, what skills do they bring to the table ? What for instance made them more qualified than people who run their own businesses and deal with those financial and personnel issues - as well as oh let's say a Northwestern MBA with prior SB experience and experience working with groups like the McArthur foundation on kids issues. I am serious here, I really want to understand as I admit, I can't see it. This has nothing to do with being a nice person...I know plenty of nice people I love as friends and neighbors but do not want them running my corporation |
|
|
|
Post by southsidemom on Apr 9, 2009 11:00:38 GMT -6
With all due respect, my decisions were solely based on who I thought was best suited for the positions. It had nothing to do with MM or anyone telling me who to vote for. I watched the interviews and read the candidates information. I was an informed voter not a puppet. If you voted for either of the 2 leading vote getters can you then share WHY with us ? What made them 'most qualified' to run a $270M operation , which is what this is ? I am really curious to understand that. As we face a severe financial crisis that is acknowledged by our SD as well as face a world consumed by economic issues, what skills do they bring to the table ? What for instance made them more qualified than people who run their own businesses and deal with those financial and personnel issues - as well as oh let's say a Northwestern MBA with prior SB experience and experience working with groups like the McArthur foundation on kids issues.
I am serious here, I really want to understand as I admit, I can't see it.This has nothing to do with being a nice person...I know plenty of nice people I love as friends and neighbors but do not want them running my corporation C'mon Doc.....you know that answer. Because Mark said so, and if not Mark then the voices on his behalf. Glad my husband is doing well in his career, because with this new group running our district funds we will need the $$$ come tax time. But then again, things can change in the blink of an eye given this economy. |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Apr 9, 2009 11:01:43 GMT -6
I took the time to sit down and map out where the 7 SB members (post election) were located geographically. Two are in the North, two in the South, and three in the center of the district. Very evenly spread out. I don't believe the "North/South division" exists to the degree that many would like to suggest. I don't think it is fair to paint the "South" with one brush. There is an small area in the southwest part of the district that is disgruntled. It is this "hotspot" that has drawn a lot of emotion by people all over the district. Right or wrong, agree or disagree this area has been very vocal and has sparked reaction from others in the district. This will hopefully eventually cool down and dissipate. I do not believe people voted based on North vs. South. I believe most people voted based on who they thought were best qualified and would best serve the interests of the district as a whole. I voted for Dawn DeSart. She lives further south than any of the 4 candidates on the slate. I felt she had school/education related experience and service that would qualify her for the position. I voted for Cathy Piehl, she live is the same area as Jerry Huang. Again, she had direct Dist. 204 experience and service I felt translated well to the board. I voted for Sue Rasmus. She lives north. She has been involved in her schools PTA for years and has been the PTA president for 2 years--direct, applicable experience and a knowledge of what is going on inside the school. I did not vote for the Slate of 4 for a number of reasons, none of which had to do with their geographic locations. First, I did not feel it was in the best interest of the district to elect 4 people as a group that if elected would come in with a collective agenda and have the majority vote on the board. I feel the board should be made up of 7 individuals. Secondly, none of the candidates had any significant service with any of the 204 schools. Some coached sports but none were in any way related to the school district. Third, I did not like the camouflaged campaign contributions by the teacher's union. I think these men would have been better served to run individually. Their slate strategy, IMO, backfired on them. It came across as though they were going to come in and try to strong-arm the district and the existing board. I was turned off by that. My thought... Stop this North vs. South nonsense. It is not truly as many would like everyone to believe. The members of this district, aside from a very small group, are just interested in the best interests of the district as a whole regardless of geographic location. Caliber - welcome. But wasn't it the good Dr Dash who mentioned there was a Center of the district in his presentation but corrected the blunder when he came under fire about the "scale" distribution map. There is an always will be a division, whether real or artificially created. |
|
|
|
Post by overtaxed on Apr 9, 2009 11:27:17 GMT -6
Rew, Due to the budget deficit approaching, I'll go on record that the shuttering will be talked about as early as within the next two years... denied right up until that point with hair-splitting statements like "there are no plans to close WV"... If the Op ref fails, be on the look out... This day is coming, I'm not looking forward to it. Why doesn't everyone see the elephant in the room? I'm so disappointed with the elections what else could happend? |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Apr 9, 2009 11:40:05 GMT -6
And let me add. that if the enrollment numbers don't materialize, the frosh center at NVHS closes, three 3000 student HSs go forward, and new boundaries. Does anyone else think it's odd that Springbrook voted number one for Piehl? They are Gregory attendees. Do they really like how the current board has handled their situation? Do they like what MM, supported by Piehl, called their neighbor? Doesn't Alka Tyle come from Springbrook? Combine that with low turnout, and I don't think anyone will be surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by treehugger on Apr 9, 2009 12:34:26 GMT -6
Yup, and Joni Blackman too. Springbrook or Breckenridge. Same school though I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 9, 2009 14:38:38 GMT -6
My prediction is that this will be a very weak board due to inexperience and character. Absolutely. Go back and watch the candidates forum. One of the winner's platform was "I have no agenda" WTF is that? How about an agenda of balancing the budget and improving test scores? SOMETHING?? |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 9, 2009 14:41:55 GMT -6
Third, I did not like the camouflaged campaign contributions by the teacher's union. How on earth Jeanette Clark won her seat after taking teacher's union contributions is beyond me. Everyone knew about it back then but suddenly now it's evil. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 9, 2009 14:44:16 GMT -6
My prediction is that this will be a very weak board due to inexperience and character. Absolutely. Go back and watch the candidates forum. One of the winner's platform was "I have no agenda" WTF is that? How about an agenda of balancing the budget and improving test scores? SOMETHING?? note to candidates 2 years from now- only 2 qualifications needed- 1/ volunteer for the PTA and 2/ be loyal to M2....Elected ! financial background and business acumen not needed...it's really disappointing... not saying they all have to be - JC for years has provided a 'balance' of sorts perspective wise- but geez, most should be able to decipher an annual statement, balance sheet, understand financing options,have some real management/HR experience/legal experience ( especially in this district) etc. We already have a PTSA and IPPC- we don't need a 3rd one. |
|
