|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 18, 2007 13:05:04 GMT -6
A little more truth comes out too..... File this under sub topic : fiduciary -- |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 18, 2007 13:29:58 GMT -6
A little more truth comes out too..... File this under sub topic : fiduciary -- Yes - some of the SB candidates seem to talking out of both sides of their mouth - talking of fiducial responsibility one minute, and then talking of having options & exploring Macom the next minute. Those that have approached Macom about pushing this to the point of the articles & ads are paticularly guilty of the double-talk. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 18, 2007 14:42:32 GMT -6
Wow, I missed that.
Now, a smart person would ask this question at the next forum.
Did you encourage Mr Lehman to go run the Macom ads.?
Now the catch is, if all the non-incumbants say no then some are certainly not telling the truth or Mr Lehman just lied to the SD which certainly dosen't help his case.
|
|
|
|
Post by proschool on Mar 18, 2007 14:57:27 GMT -6
Balance is one of the worst things about the Macom site. The more I think about it the less I like it even as a plan B. What is the advantage of the Macom site over Parent's church site (except for the alleged availability which is questionable). Parent's site was ruled out because of the power lines and transformers but the Macom site has them as well. A Peterson/ Longwood swap is not an adequate boundary tweak. Cowlishaw, Watts and Owen will all be best positioned to attend NVHS which shifts three schools from NV to Metea. how fun is that process going to be? MVHS will not be another NVHS because Howie said so (even though everyone seems to like it there and it wasn't really all that expensive). But the Macom site is tucked away in the corner of the district. I prefer a central location because the schools facilities are used by the community for all sorts of purposes and if everyone is paying for them it makes the most sense to have them where everyone can use them. Peterson and Owen were also built in the corner of the district. When they were built families were fighting to stay out of those schools. A you are right on on most of this - but then you don't have an agenda why you want it to be MACOM Owen & Watts are closer to NV than WV -- Cowlishaw is also but not by as much - and you can bet those 3 will likely shift if MACOM is chosen, because unless you bus kids past those 3 areas ( wasn't this the argument for geographic ?) - the 75th street corridor will go south because the schools north and west of here will fill up WV. What does that do to Longwood ? Is this something we really want to do again ? I know for me, the answer is no. I don't want to go to boundaries again either but if you think about another site you have to think about new boundaries. It's not responsible to have future families live with a boundary selection that was based on a separate school location just because the process is uncomfortable and difficult. Owen is way too far for the macom site because those kids are coming from Leigh High Station (behind Meijer) and Brighton Ridge (75th and Modaff which is about 4 miles east of Route 59). I heard a lot of arguments from the south advocating another southern school but mostly from people who expected to stay at NVHS. If the school is going to be in the south why not fill it up with students from the south and allow others to attend NVHS which would be a more reasonable distance from their homes. BTW I supported cloning NVHS at the BB site because the design has been hugely popular and successful. It seemed to be important to those attending other schools that MVHS not be another NVHS so we are proceeding with a design that is significantly less appealing. If this school does wind up in the south I don't think that it will be a good reason to improve the design to anything better than it would have been if it were located in Aurora. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 18, 2007 16:28:11 GMT -6
Wait, someone has already lied to us. Remember the affliation question, they all said NO but we now know there are at least 2 challengers working with Macom hence an affliation.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 18, 2007 16:33:24 GMT -6
Wait, someone has already lied to us. Remember the affliation question, they all said NO but we now know there are at least 2 challengers working with Macom hence an affliation. this needs to be asked at the next forum - the game is up - time to own up to where they really stand -- |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 18, 2007 17:28:59 GMT -6
I think the key word is some. It is more than one so it could be all four. My guess would be 3 of the 4 challengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by momof3 on Mar 18, 2007 20:27:13 GMT -6
I think the key word is some. It is more than one so it could be all four. My guess would be 3 of the 4 challengers. Actually 2 things came to mind when I re-read the article: - I wouldn't be surprised if PL was being duped into being the 'bad guy' much like GV before folks with ulterior motives took over CFO. The people who are pushing for this won't show their face or chance sullying their reputation, so they find a sucker willing to do it for them. - I also wouldn't be surprised if this was just posturing by Macom to prove to his business partners in the AP/AC development that he was trying to do something to recoup their losses. There are several builders involved with that development that are probably losing their shirt along with Macom. (The LTEs from those builders supporting the new site comes to mind.) - |
|
|
|
Post by movingforward on Mar 18, 2007 20:46:55 GMT -6
I think the key word is some. It is more than one so it could be all four. My guess would be 3 of the 4 challengers. Actually 2 things came to mind when I re-read the article: - I wouldn't be surprised if PL was being duped into being the 'bad guy' much like GV before folks with ulterior motives took over CFO. The people who are pushing for this won't show their face or chance sullying their reputation, so they find a sucker willing to do it for them. - I also wouldn't be surprised if this was just posturing by Macom to prove to his business partners in the AP/AC development that he was trying to do something to recoup their losses. There are several builders involved with that development that are probably losing their shirt along with Macom. (The LTEs from those builders supporting the new site comes to mind.) - I think you are right-on in your second point. Macom needs to show that he has made every attempt to help out the builders. The community needs to hear loud and clear Lehmans own words...the site "isn't an ideal location" for the high school.....That is the most important piece of info IMO.... Not only is the location filled with obstacle after obstacle that would not allow a timely opening , but it is not a an ideal location for an additional safety related reason that I have recently heard about,..... ... There is a Commonwealth Edison sub-station on the Macom site. Comm. Ed indicated it cannot be moved and will be added on to in the future. The sub-station is a huge issue as it concerns the safety of the children that would attend MVHS. I was told that several years ago there was an elementary school scheduled to be built near a sub-station and parents protested and the location of the school was subsequently changed. Does anyone recall the details? Regardless of Paul Lehmans motives, the primary issue is that his site is NOT ideal, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION , for use as a high school location. It is meant to do nothing more than cause voters to second guess the school board. That is what happens at election time. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 18, 2007 21:16:37 GMT -6
Wait, someone has already lied to us. Remember the affliation question, they all said NO but we now know there are at least 2 challengers working with Macom hence an affliation. this needs to be asked at the next forum - the game is up - time to own up to where they really stand -- When and where is the next forum again? Is it Monday @ WV Freshman campus? Oh, and if any SB candidates are a no-show tomorrow, then we'll know why, and and we can assume they're the ones behind this. |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 19, 2007 9:23:28 GMT -6
this needs to be asked at the next forum - the game is up - time to own up to where they really stand -- When and where is the next forum again? Is it Monday @ WV Freshman campus? Oh, and if any SB candidates are a no-show tomorrow, then we'll know why, and and we can assume they're the ones behind this. I've been informed that SC will not be there tonight and that he declined the invite BEFORE this article came out. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 19, 2007 9:45:02 GMT -6
When and where is the next forum again? Is it Monday @ WV Freshman campus? Oh, and if any SB candidates are a no-show tomorrow, then we'll know why, and and we can assume they're the ones behind this. I've been informed that SC will not be there tonight and that he declined the invite BEFORE this article came out. Let's see SC declined to give info to DH (strike 1) , is missing tonites forum (strike 2) Did I miss anything? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 19, 2007 10:01:38 GMT -6
I've been informed that SC will not be there tonight and that he declined the invite BEFORE this article came out. Let's see SC declined to give info to DH (strike 1) , is missing tonites forum (strike 2) Did I miss anything? No web site - slider on the outside corner - he gone |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 19, 2007 10:05:43 GMT -6
I've been informed that SC will not be there tonight and that he declined the invite BEFORE this article came out. Let's see SC declined to give info to DH (strike 1) , is missing tonites forum (strike 2) Did I miss anything? He doesn't have a website (really necessary to run a serious campaign these days IMO), and in the first forum talked about what a great community Naperville is (though I hear he more than compensated for this in the second forum!). |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 19, 2007 10:11:42 GMT -6
Did he say why? He might have a previous appointment.
|
|
