School Board Oath of Office

[macrockett]

This is the oath of office required to be taken by every Board member who serves.

winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/MMDueDiligence.pdf

Each Board member affirms that they will, among other things, do the following:

1--faithfully discharge the duties of the office of member of the Board of Education (or Board of School Directors, as the case may be) of (name of school district), in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the laws of the State of Illinois, to the best of my ability

2--respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district's assets; The question I have for the Board is this: how can you say you are respecting the taxpayers interests and are serving as a faithful protector of the school district's assets when you move forward with a plan to build a third highschool with out the proper due diligence to establish the best, i.e., cost-efficient way to satisfy our capacity needs? In addition, how can you say you satisfied this condition when you failed to obtain an appraisal not once, but twice, on the land aquisition of Eola?

3--encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, ...

4--recognize that a board member has no legal authority as an individual and that decisions can be made only by a majority vote at a public board meeting;

In addition, the Board set a number of goals, for itself, for the FY 09 on 8/11/08 winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/BoardGoals2008-09.pdf Among other things, they agreed to do the following: 22. Implement long range facility assessment plan. The question I have here is how is that assessment plan going? In other words, what is the plan going forward? I asked this very question in the last Board meeting.

Further, while the school district legal status winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/100_policymanual.pdf clearly says that the "public schools belong to the people" and "the people are the ultimate governors of public education and the board is directly accountable to the people" I can tell you unequivocally, that simply isn't complete true.

What I mean is this, once elected your Board can pretty much do what it pleases short of violating the law or being grossly negligent in carrying out the duties of the office.

It really doesn't have to represent "you" to any significant degree. (Sashimi please chime in here if you wish to add, clarify, amend, etc.) Mark Metzger likes to refer to the "republic" form of government, which is nothing more than a government where the people are represented by their elected officials.

The problem is, we all know what this system of government seems to have evolved into, i.e., i find the people willing to vote for me, I keep them happy and I can ignore everyone else as i am protected by my voting block as long as I satisfy their needs. (perhaps I am a little cynical, but this seems to adequately describe both Springfield and Washington pretty well.)

I believe that is how we end up with some very tortured laws and spending decisions and so on. Just look locally at the City of Chicago, or Cook County or the insanity in the State of California right now...the list is endless. In Springfield, state government is, for all intents and purposes, barely functioning. But I digress.

Lastly, our District 204 mission statement states: winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/105.pdf

"The mission of Indian Prairie Community Unit School District 204 is to develop the full potential of each student's intellectual, ethical, physical, creative, cultural, social and technological capabilities. This will be accomplished by providing equitable quality instruction and developing positive relationships with young people. We are dedicated to maximizing the professional skills and human potential of every staff member, because we recognize that an exemplary staff, working as partners with parents, is the key to developing well-educated, responsible citizens."

The question I have here is, can you "develop the full potential of each student...", can you "maximize the professional skills and human potential of every staff member..." unless you are otherwise deploying the limited assets of the district in the most effective and efficient way, so as to preserve all you can to satisfy your mission statement?

The best example that comes to mind here, for me, is this: As I have stated, I believe we could have met our capacity needs in a much more effective and efficient manner. Rather than build a third highschool, add on to existing facilities as need. I believe we would have saved in the neighborbood of $95 million in the form of approximately $60 million savings in captial costs (brick and mortar) and approximately $35 million in savings for lower financing costs (interest payments).

Couldn't that saving have then been channeled into adding new programs for students to "develop their potential" or by further developing the skills of our professional staff, or for retro-fitting the fans in the schools to assist all the childen with hearing loss develop their full potential, or adding teaching assistants to further assist the special needs children to reach their full potential?

That is at the core of why I am here on this Board. I am not here to accuse anyone of anything or to make anyone's life miserable. Nor am I here to talk about boundaries. I am here to remind everyone, including myself, about that mission statement. Everyone in this district plays a part in what this district represents and what it is able to accomplish for our children. To the extent we don't participate, vote, ask questions of our School Board and hold them accountable for their decisions, and above all, do what is in the best interest of the community, we let our children down.

[sashimi]

Interesting...I never knew that MM spoke of the republic form of government (makes a lot of sense). In the truest sense, a republic is where the "strongest" or "wisest" are elected to make judgments on behalf of the people.

Plato was one of the earliest to write of a republic government and had two relevant observations:

One, "might makes right"..truth and justice are only what the "strongest" people say they are;

and two, all republics end up sliding from democracy into tyranny because those elected to determine what is in the best interest of the people get big heads (which Plato wrote usually ends up with the elected official calling one of the people he is elected to serve a mother%^G^).

Yes, Michael, the reality is that the Board is given a huge amount of latitude and discretion in what they do. Unless these actions are criminal, really, really grossly negligent, or infringe on the rights of a protected class, there is really no remedy other than overthrowing the school board government by force, which I eliminated a long time ago as a practical option.

Of course, the real tool we have is at the ballot box and so far, I am afraid that our tyrant and his merry group has created such fear that every neighborhood/voter is only looking at ensuring that they have representation that is committed to protecting their own little kingdoms.

[macrockett]

Jun 2, 2009 20:11:25 GMT -6 sashimi said:

Interesting...I never knew that MM spoke of the republic form of government (makes a lot of sense). In the truest sense, a republic is where the "strongest" or "wisest" are elected to make judgments on behalf of the people.

Plato was one of the earliest to write of a republic government and had two relevant observations:

One, "might makes right"..truth and justice are only what the "strongest" people say they are;

and two, all republics end up sliding from democracy into tyranny because those elected to determine what is in the best interest of the people get big heads (which Plato wrote usually ends up with the elected official calling one of the people he is elected to serve a mother%^G^).

Yes, Michael, the reality is that the Board is given a huge amount of latitude and discretion in what they do. Unless these actions are criminal, really, really grossly negligent, or infringe on the rights of a protected class, there is really no remedy other than overthrowing the school board government by force, which I eliminated a long time ago as a practical option.

Of course, the real tool we have is at the ballot box and so far, I am afraid that our tyrant and his merry group has created such fear that every neighborhood/voter is only looking at ensuring that they have representation that is committed to protecting their own little kingdoms.

sadly true, however hopefully, now that we are "awake" to the reality and operating in real time rather than catchup, we can help hold the Board accountable by putting the word out more quickly and to more people. By the way, I called on the right person regarding the republic form of govt, lol. Whereas I remember the basics, I had to go back and read the scholars to refresh my memory.

[sashimi]

One follow up...

We obviously employ a republican form of government where we elect officials to represent our interests. Although far from perfect..I do not think there is not a better system out there.

But we also employ a government that has checks and balances to curtail the abuse of this power and to make sure that the community does not transfer all of their rights and power to the officals they elect.

On the micro level of D204, the administration and board are required to get voter approval through the process of a referendum to support certain expenditures (like the construction of a 150 million dollar high school).

The intention of the referendum process is to seek the approval (through an open democratic process) of the community. Thus, although we give our elected officials a great deal of discretion in carrying forth their responsibilities on our behalf, the referendum process is a checks and balance to that discretion. This is the fork in the road where the judgment of our elected officials is supposed to be subordinate to the will of the community. TO WORK AS DESIGNED, this requires our elected officials to openly and honestly communicate facts and information in their possesion so that the electorate can make an informed decision.

This is where I think my understanding of a ideal republic and MM's idea of an ideal republic seem to significantly diverge.

I believe that our elected officials have an obligation and duty to communicate accurate and truthful information, even when this information may not support the result that they think would be the best outcome for the community.

I believe that if you are going to survey the electorate in regards to a referendum, it should be done for the purpose of evaluating what the community wants...not for the purposes of engaging a PR firm to manipulate options and data to achieve a result that an elected official desires.

I believe that the Board and Administration KNEW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY did not support a third high school (by the 2005 referendum resuts and their own survey), and there is no question in my mind that the site location, boundaries, pamphlets in our children's backpacks, inflated student population data and threats of split shifts (which the survey indicated was the worst fear of the community) were undertaken with the specific intention of manipulating a result and ensuring that the judgment of the community was subordinated to the board and administration's desired outcome.

This is why I supported the NSFOC lawsuit. Not because my children would be moved to WVHS (they are in private school), but because it became apparent that the Board and Administration was not standing behind specific commitments, and made intentional misrepresentations to secure the passage of the referendum.

Unfortunately, the law does not always protect that the system works as it is designed to. The language of the referendum was in fact clear, and did not contain the location of the 3d high school (or the boundaries). It also did not contain language that if the referendum failed we would have split shifts, that the student population was not going to be anywhere near what was represented, or that by 125 million dollars they really meant 150 million dollars plus.

But there are in fact moral standards that you expect your elected officials to adhere to (I know in Chicago and Illinois this is probably way too idealistic). For many, the ends justified the means on this one, but from where I stand I think that the Board and Administration have tarnished our, albeit imperfect, system of government.

[doctorwho]

Jun 3, 2009 11:27:29 GMT -6 sashimi said:

One follow up...

We obviously employ a republican form of government where we elect officials to represent our interests. Although far from perfect..I do not think there is not a better system out there.

But we also employ a government that has checks and balances to curtail the abuse of this power and to make sure that the community does not transfer all of their rights and power to the officals they elect.

On the micro level of D204, the administration and board are required to get voter approval through the process of a referendum to support certain expenditures (like the construction of a 150 million dollar high school).

The intention of the referendum process is to seek the approval (through an open democratic process) of the community. Thus, although we give our elected officials a great deal of discretion in carrying forth their responsibilities on our behalf, the referendum process is a checks and balance to that discretion. This is the fork in the road where the judgment of our elected officials is supposed to be subordinate to the will of the community. TO WORK AS DESIGNED, this requires our elected officials to openly and honestly communicate facts and information in their possesion so that the electorate can make an informed decision.

This is where I think my understanding of a ideal republic and MM's idea of an ideal republic seem to significantly diverge.

I believe that our elected officials have an obligation and duty to communicate accurate and truthful information, even when this information may not support the result that they think would be the best outcome for the community.

I believe that if you are going to survey the electorate in regards to a referendum, it should be done for the purpose of evaluating what the community wants...not for the purposes of engaging a PR firm to manipulate options and data to achieve a result that an elected official desires.

I believe that the Board and Administration KNEW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY did not support a third high school (by the 2005 referendum resuts and their own survey), and there is no question in my mind that the site location, boundaries, pamphlets in our children's backpacks, inflated student population data and threats of split shifts (which the survey indicated was the worst fear of the community) were undertaken with the specific intention of manipulating a result and ensuring that the judgment of the community was subordinated to the board and administration's desired outcome.

This is why I supported the NSFOC lawsuit. Not because my children would be moved to WVHS (they are in private school), but because it became apparent that the Board and Administration was not standing behind specific commitments, and made intentional misrepresentations to secure the passage of the referendum.

Unfortunately, the law does not always protect that the system works as it is designed to. The language of the referendum was in fact clear, and did not contain the location of the 3d high school (or the boundaries). It also did not contain language that if the referendum failed we would have split shifts, that the student population was not going to be anywhere near what was represented, or that by 125 million dollars they really meant 150 million dollars plus.

But there are in fact moral standards that you expect your elected officials to adhere to (I know in Chicago and Illinois this is probably way too idealistic). For many, the ends justified the means on this one, but from where I stand I think that the Board and Administration have tarnished our, albeit imperfect, system of government.

unemotionally and extremely well put --- unfortunately intent - or moral/ethical obligations seems to have no place here any more -- staying just inside the chalk lines of legality appears to be the only boundary.
The community was manipulated, crucial facts withheld, and worst case scenarios painted as fact...

Again, my main question is why ? What was the motivation to do so ? Why not divulge critical information like the population estimate is off by almost 2000 students ? Is it to make sure plans go thru no matter what, or do they think we are too stupid to understand the ramifications ?
Instead of admitting the discrepancy and saying, we'd still like to go ahead and have 3 much smaller high schools, and yes one day we may only need 2... however we could easily adapt to with the facilities and size we have today, and 5 years from now the 2 schools may be even smaller -- it's your call community with regards to YOUR money. But no - they use the BS about it wasn't on the ballot even though location/boundaries & avoidance of overcrowding and split shifts is what was sold to everyone.

I think there were several reasons, for one it was they think they are smarter than everyone else, for another it was to deliver 'their Taj Mahal' to their area. Did it start out that way or simply devolve into what we ended up with?

Did absolute power corrupt absolutely as is said ? Why would basically good people continue down a path when they knew the facts were bad quite some time ago ? It just makes no sense

[Arch]

They have repeatedly shown that they can not be trusted and have been caught many times with their hands in the cookie jar of knowingly putting out false or misleading information WHEN THEY KNEW BETTER.

This is a top-down problem and it unfortunately permeates through all layers of the district in how many employees also conduct themselves... because that behavior is deemed 'acceptable' and 'normal' from the top down.

[macrockett]

Jun 3, 2009 11:27:29 GMT -6 sashimi said:

One follow up...

We obviously employ a republican form of government where we elect officials to represent our interests. Although far from perfect..I do not think there is not a better system out there.

But we also employ a government that has checks and balances to curtail the abuse of this power and to make sure that the community does not transfer all of their rights and power to the officals they elect.

On the micro level of D204, the administration and board are required to get voter approval through the process of a referendum to support certain expenditures (like the construction of a 150 million dollar high school).

The intention of the referendum process is to seek the approval (through an open democratic process) of the community. Thus, although we give our elected officials a great deal of discretion in carrying forth their responsibilities on our behalf, the referendum process is a checks and balance to that discretion. This is the fork in the road where the judgment of our elected officials is supposed to be subordinate to the will of the community. TO WORK AS DESIGNED, this requires our elected officials to openly and honestly communicate facts and information in their possesion so that the electorate can make an informed decision.

This is where I think my understanding of a ideal republic and MM's idea of an ideal republic seem to significantly diverge.

I believe that our elected officials have an obligation and duty to communicate accurate and truthful information, even when this information may not support the result that they think would be the best outcome for the community.

I believe that if you are going to survey the electorate in regards to a referendum, it should be done for the purpose of evaluating what the community wants...not for the purposes of engaging a PR firm to manipulate options and data to achieve a result that an elected official desires.

I believe that the Board and Administration KNEW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY did not support a third high school (by the 2005 referendum resuts and their own survey), and there is no question in my mind that the site location, boundaries, pamphlets in our children's backpacks, inflated student population data and threats of split shifts (which the survey indicated was the worst fear of the community) were undertaken with the specific intention of manipulating a result and ensuring that the judgment of the community was subordinated to the board and administration's desired outcome.

This is why I supported the NSFOC lawsuit. Not because my children would be moved to WVHS (they are in private school), but because it became apparent that the Board and Administration was not standing behind specific commitments, and made intentional misrepresentations to secure the passage of the referendum.

Unfortunately, the law does not always protect that the system works as it is designed to. The language of the referendum was in fact clear, and did not contain the location of the 3d high school (or the boundaries). It also did not contain language that if the referendum failed we would have split shifts, that the student population was not going to be anywhere near what was represented, or that by 125 million dollars they really meant 150 million dollars plus.

But there are in fact moral standards that you expect your elected officials to adhere to (I know in Chicago and Illinois this is probably way too idealistic). For many, the ends justified the means on this one, but from where I stand I think that the Board and Administration have tarnished our, albeit imperfect, system of government.

I agree completely Sashimi, which is why we are supposed to have some comfort in the equitable estoppel argument. Without that a yes vote on anything is going to be hard to muster since, when you ask for clarification, you can't rely on the representations made. In fact, you can't even rely on hundreds of representations in various forms.

[macrockett]

Jun 3, 2009 11:39:48 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Jun 3, 2009 11:27:29 GMT -6 sashimi said:

One follow up...

We obviously employ a republican form of government where we elect officials to represent our interests. Although far from perfect..I do not think there is not a better system out there.

But we also employ a government that has checks and balances to curtail the abuse of this power and to make sure that the community does not transfer all of their rights and power to the officals they elect.

On the micro level of D204, the administration and board are required to get voter approval through the process of a referendum to support certain expenditures (like the construction of a 150 million dollar high school).

The intention of the referendum process is to seek the approval (through an open democratic process) of the community. Thus, although we give our elected officials a great deal of discretion in carrying forth their responsibilities on our behalf, the referendum process is a checks and balance to that discretion. This is the fork in the road where the judgment of our elected officials is supposed to be subordinate to the will of the community. TO WORK AS DESIGNED, this requires our elected officials to openly and honestly communicate facts and information in their possesion so that the electorate can make an informed decision.

This is where I think my understanding of a ideal republic and MM's idea of an ideal republic seem to significantly diverge.

I believe that our elected officials have an obligation and duty to communicate accurate and truthful information, even when this information may not support the result that they think would be the best outcome for the community.

I believe that if you are going to survey the electorate in regards to a referendum, it should be done for the purpose of evaluating what the community wants...not for the purposes of engaging a PR firm to manipulate options and data to achieve a result that an elected official desires.

I believe that the Board and Administration KNEW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY did not support a third high school (by the 2005 referendum resuts and their own survey), and there is no question in my mind that the site location, boundaries, pamphlets in our children's backpacks, inflated student population data and threats of split shifts (which the survey indicated was the worst fear of the community) were undertaken with the specific intention of manipulating a result and ensuring that the judgment of the community was subordinated to the board and administration's desired outcome.

This is why I supported the NSFOC lawsuit. Not because my children would be moved to WVHS (they are in private school), but because it became apparent that the Board and Administration was not standing behind specific commitments, and made intentional misrepresentations to secure the passage of the referendum.

Unfortunately, the law does not always protect that the system works as it is designed to. The language of the referendum was in fact clear, and did not contain the location of the 3d high school (or the boundaries). It also did not contain language that if the referendum failed we would have split shifts, that the student population was not going to be anywhere near what was represented, or that by 125 million dollars they really meant 150 million dollars plus.

But there are in fact moral standards that you expect your elected officials to adhere to (I know in Chicago and Illinois this is probably way too idealistic). For many, the ends justified the means on this one, but from where I stand I think that the Board and Administration have tarnished our, albeit imperfect, system of government.

unemotionally and extremely well put --- unfortunately intent - or moral/ethical obligations seems to have no place here any more -- staying just inside the chalk lines of legality appears to be the only boundary.
The community was manipulated, crucial facts withheld, and worst case scenarios painted as fact...

Again, my main question is why ? What was the motivation to do so ? Why not divulge critical information like the population estimate is off by almost 2000 students ? Is it to make sure plans go thru no matter what, or do they think we are too stupid to understand the ramifications ?
Instead of admitting the discrepancy and saying, we'd still like to go ahead and have 3 much smaller high schools, and yes one day we may only need 2... however we could easily adapt to with the facilities and size we have today, and 5 years from now the 2 schools may be even smaller -- it's your call community with regards to YOUR money. But no - they use the BS about it wasn't on the ballot even though location/boundaries & avoidance of overcrowding and split shifts is what was sold to everyone.

I think there were several reasons, for one it was they think they are smarter than everyone else, for another it was to deliver 'their Taj Mahal' to their area. Did it start out that way or simply devolve into what we ended up with?

Did absolute power corrupt absolutely as is said ? Why would basically good people continue down a path when they knew the facts were bad quite some time ago ? It just makes no sense

Again, I agree completely.