Parent's Lobbyist Fought District

[blankcheck]

I am sure the district had lobbyists as well - I would like to know what those costs were as well as what our attorney fees were. If BB attorney fees were 4 million what are ours?

Also, why all the meeting behind closed doors? By law they have to have public opinion time - yeah right at like 1:00 am? If that why the new super pushed all public comment back to the end of the meeting?

Finally, M2's comments about quick take? Huh?? He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. You can not tell me that they would not have jumped on that in a heartbeat. We should all count our blessings that that did not go through. Again, would you put your family at risk to buy something of which you have no idea of the cost??? That is exactly what our district was trying to do!

[macy]

I live in her district and was against both the Ashwood change in boundaries and the quick take.

[bob]

blankcheck said:

I am sure the district had lobbyists as well - I would like to know what those costs were as well as what our attorney fees were. If BB attorney fees were 4 million what are ours?

Also, why all the meeting behind closed doors? By law they have to have public opinion time - yeah right at like 1:00 am? If that why the new super pushed all public comment back to the end of the meeting?

Finally, M2's comments about quick take? Huh?? He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. You can not tell me that they would not have jumped on that in a heartbeat. We should all count our blessings that that did not go through. Again, would you put your family at risk to buy something of which you have no idea of the cost??? That is exactly what our district was trying to do!

Call Holmes and get the info. It is as easy as that.

[Arch]

blankcheck said:

Again, would you put your family at risk to buy something of which you have no idea of the cost??? That is exactly what our district was trying to do!

This seems to be also what some are saying to do now with switching sites to one with unknown costs. I'd like to see them side by side, but to fill in those blanks will take more time during which even more costs get tacked on. It seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't predicament.

[casey]

bob said:

wvhsparent said:

ya mean my emails and phone calls meant nothing?

Unless they had $18k attached to a lobbyist. ;D

Wow, I feel privileged. I had Senator Holmes's (and Senator Halvorson's) attention and it didn't cost me a dime. I simply emailed asking for some of their time and they emailed and called me back. I found both to be extremely knowledgeable of the whole situation. They spent a considerable amount of time with me gathering information on the whole thing. How many of you actually tried to get an "audience" with Senator Holmes?

Maybe I am naive but I don't think Linda Holmes's decision was made based on money or the "poor Ashwood Creek" boundary issue. I think she was getting "bull-dogged" by the SB and she stood up for what she thought was right. I found her to be smart, professional, and concerned. I think she had enough sense to listen to others saying "no QT". I would definitely give her my support in any re-election.

IMO the SB should have never been pushing for QT in the first place. They pushed because they wanted the land no matter what it would cost. It would be easy after the fact to blame the jury when the cost came back over double. Of course, now I think we'll be in that same position anyway.

[sd204taxpayer]

I don't believe the costs will change from one site to another as administrator's comment in Britt Carson's article. Does anyone believe that construction will start on BB yet this year? Don't try and BS us and scare us that costs will be dramatically higher - the increases are already there due to the delay. The true analysis has to be costs of starting now vs starting in the spring.

I see the SB lining their decision up with "higher construction costs" and BB attorney fees so supposedly the BB site is our best option. I don't believe that for one second. I haven't seen many things go the way the SB thought they would starting with the first referendum - why will their next decision be correct?

Is there a way to find out what the SB requested of the administrators? I understand that information may not be able to be conveyed at this point in time - but what about after they have reached their decision. We as taxpayers should know what their motives were as they come up for re-election and use that in our decision process. I'm sure most won't re-run after this fiasco so it may be a moot point. Enquiring minds want to know!

[casey]

blankcheck said:

I am sure the district had lobbyists as well - I would like to know what those costs were as well as what our attorney fees were. If BB attorney fees were 4 million what are ours?

Also, why all the meeting behind closed doors? By law they have to have public opinion time - yeah right at like 1:00 am? If that why the new super pushed all public comment back to the end of the meeting?

Finally, M2's comments about quick take? Huh?? He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. You can not tell me that they would not have jumped on that in a heartbeat. We should all count our blessings that that did not go through. Again, would you put your family at risk to buy something of which you have no idea of the cost??? That is exactly what our district was trying to do!

I couldn't agree more blankcheck! I would venture to guess that our lobbyist and legal costs will be MANY millions. Don't fool yourself to think that the SD didn't pay their own lobbyists in Springfield. Before we know it, HC will be a paid lobbyist for our SD. Laugh if you want, but I think that day's coming soon.

I also agree about the closed-door meetings. If you like blankcheck, I'll stay with you following Monday's meeting . In all hoesty it probably will be 1:00 am.

As far as M2's comment about QT, you're exactly right. They would have jumped on it in a heartbeat. They weren't spending money on lobbyists and sitting around hoping it would pass just so they could use it as a negotiating tool. How could anyone believe that

I applaud the Spangler guy whoever he is. He stood up for what he thought was right. For the record, I don't think anyone should be posting personal information about him (where his kids go to school, where he lives, etc.).

[momof3]

I wonder how Melissa Jenco got this story lead? She either found it out herself or someone wanted it in the paper. Not so sure about finding it out herself...wonder who wanted this info public and to what end?

Seems to me this information doesn't change any minds - people that are for the 3rd HS are still for the 3rd HS (No one spends $18K without some personal gain expected; what's his real motivation?)- people against are still against (Good for him to put his money where his mouth is!). It does keep the fight going, however!

[harry]

casey said:

blankcheck said:

I am sure the district had lobbyists as well - I would like to know what those costs were as well as what our attorney fees were. If BB attorney fees were 4 million what are ours?

Also, why all the meeting behind closed doors? By law they have to have public opinion time - yeah right at like 1:00 am? If that why the new super pushed all public comment back to the end of the meeting?

Finally, M2's comments about quick take? Huh?? He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. You can not tell me that they would not have jumped on that in a heartbeat. We should all count our blessings that that did not go through. Again, would you put your family at risk to buy something of which you have no idea of the cost??? That is exactly what our district was trying to do!

I couldn't agree more blankcheck! I would venture to guess that our lobbyist and legal costs will be MANY millions. Don't fool yourself to think that the SD didn't pay their own lobbyists in Springfield. Before we know it, HC will be a paid lobbyist for our SD. Laugh if you want, but I think that day's coming soon.

I also agree about the closed-door meetings. If you like blankcheck, I'll stay with you following Monday's meeting . In all hoesty it probably will be 1:00 am.

As far as M2's comment about QT, you're exactly right. They would have jumped on it in a heartbeat. They weren't spending money on lobbyists and sitting around hoping it would pass just so they could use it as a negotiating tool. How could anyone believe that

I applaud the Spangler guy whoever he is. He stood up for what he thought was right. For the record, I don't think anyone should be posting personal information about him (where his kids go to school, where he lives, etc.).

Agreed and agreed to all of the above. SB could care less about the taxpayers opinions or public comment would be lst, M2 consistently is a buffoon, SB wanted QT so that they could claim "OMG we had no idea it would come in so high...Oh well, now we have to pay it...Oops"

A special meeting needs to be called with the Super to review the entire blundered package of the SB.

[harry]

momof3 said:

I wonder how Melissa Jenco got this story lead? She either found it out herself or someone wanted it in the paper. Not so sure about finding it out herself...wonder who wanted this info public and to what end?

Seems to me this information doesn't change any minds - people that are for the 3rd HS are still for the 3rd HS (No one spends $18K without some personal gain expected; what's his real motivation?)- people against are still against (Good for him to put his money where his mouth is!). It does keep the fight going, however!

Sources,,always the sources.

[warriorpride]

momof3 said:

I wonder how Melissa Jenco got this story lead? She either found it out herself or someone wanted it in the paper. Not so sure about finding it out herself...wonder who wanted this info public and to what end?

Seems to me this information doesn't change any minds - people that are for the 3rd HS are still for the 3rd HS (No one spends $18K without some personal gain expected; what's his real motivation?)- people against are still against (Good for him to put his money where his mouth is!). It does keep the fight going, however!

I thought the same thing. Being the conspiracy theorist, I think it's a calculated move to keep the BB/MV issue in the paper & to rally people against BB or even building MV. Earlier in the week, we had CV with her "not convinved of the need of a 3rd HS" for the umteenth time, and now this. There seems to be something in the paper every few days.

Anyone notice the headline on the continuation of the article on page 6? "Macom property emerges as alternative site". Huh? is this what the story is about? Perhaps it's this guy's agenda, but Macom is old news. Why was this the headline?

I also found references to the Calvary site interesting. I wonder what the anti-BB and anti-3rd HS people are going to do to foil that option.

[harry]

warriorpride said:

momof3 said:

I wonder how Melissa Jenco got this story lead? She either found it out herself or someone wanted it in the paper. Not so sure about finding it out herself...wonder who wanted this info public and to what end?

Seems to me this information doesn't change any minds - people that are for the 3rd HS are still for the 3rd HS (No one spends $18K without some personal gain expected; what's his real motivation?)- people against are still against (Good for him to put his money where his mouth is!). It does keep the fight going, however!

I thought the same thing. Being the conspiracy theorist, I think it's a calculated move to keep the BB/MV issue in the paper & to rally people against BB or even building MV. Earlier in the week, we had CV with her "not convinved of the need of a 3rd HS" for the umteenth time, and now this. There seems to be something in the paper every few days.

Anyone notice the headline on the continuation of the article on page 6? "Macom property emerges as alternative site". Huh? is this what the story is about? Perhaps it's this guy's agenda, but Macom is old news. Why was this the headline?

I also found references to the Calvary site interesting. I wonder what the anti-BB and anti-3rd HS people are going to do to foil that option.

Start with Rte 59 being the only access onto the property ;D

Add,, no mention of the church property up north either as under consideration..BB or Bust

[warriorpride]

sd204taxpayer said:

I don't believe the costs will change from one site to another as administrator's comment in Britt Carson's article. Does anyone believe that construction will start on BB yet this year? Don't try and BS us and scare us that costs will be dramatically higher - the increases are already there due to the delay. The true analysis has to be costs of starting now vs starting in the spring.

I see the SB lining their decision up with "higher construction costs" and BB attorney fees so supposedly the BB site is our best option. I don't believe that for one second. I haven't seen many things go the way the SB thought they would starting with the first referendum - why will their next decision be correct?

Is there a way to find out what the SB requested of the administrators? I understand that information may not be able to be conveyed at this point in time - but what about after they have reached their decision. We as taxpayers should know what their motives were as they come up for re-election and use that in our decision process. I'm sure most won't re-run after this fiasco so it may be a moot point. Enquiring minds want to know!

So, if you don't trust the SD, why would you trust them if they decided to go with Macom?

[movingforward]

casey said:

bob said:

Unless they had $18k attached to a lobbyist. ;D

Wow, I feel privileged. I had Senator Holmes's (and Senator Halvorson's) attention and it didn't cost me a dime. I simply emailed asking for some of their time and they emailed and called me back. I found both to be extremely knowledgeable of the whole situation. They spent a considerable amount of time with me gathering information on the whole thing. How many of you actually tried to get an "audience" with Senator Holmes?

Maybe I am naive but I don't think Linda Holmes's decision was made based on money or the "poor Ashwood Creek" boundary issue. I think she was getting "bull-dogged" by the SB and she stood up for what she thought was right. I found her to be smart, professional, and concerned. I think she had enough sense to listen to others saying "no QT". I would definitely give her my support in any re-election.

IMO the SB should have never been pushing for QT in the first place. They pushed because they wanted the land no matter what it would cost. It would be easy after the fact to blame the jury when the cost came back over double. Of course, now I think we'll be in that same position anyway.

My opinion IS based on my personal discussions with her and her 'odd' concern for one subdivisions boundaries.

[sd204taxpayer]

warriorpride said:

sd204taxpayer said:

I don't believe the costs will change from one site to another as administrator's comment in Britt Carson's article. Does anyone believe that construction will start on BB yet this year? Don't try and BS us and scare us that costs will be dramatically higher - the increases are already there due to the delay. The true analysis has to be costs of starting now vs starting in the spring.

I see the SB lining their decision up with "higher construction costs" and BB attorney fees so supposedly the BB site is our best option. I don't believe that for one second. I haven't seen many things go the way the SB thought they would starting with the first referendum - why will their next decision be correct?

Is there a way to find out what the SB requested of the administrators? I understand that information may not be able to be conveyed at this point in time - but what about after they have reached their decision. We as taxpayers should know what their motives were as they come up for re-election and use that in our decision process. I'm sure most won't re-run after this fiasco so it may be a moot point. Enquiring minds want to know!

So, if you don't trust the SD, why would you trust them if they decided to go with Macom?

I just want them pursuing other sites for significantly less money and being openminded about this process. IMO they are stuck on BB and if you reaad between the lines they keep moving in the BB direction.