|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 4, 2008 21:41:05 GMT -6
The group is requesting $204 from each participant. You don't think he in it for the greater good, do you? He is dreaming of his vacation in Barbados, paid for by the concerned residents of naperville.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 4, 2008 21:45:03 GMT -6
The group is requesting $204 from each participant. You don't think he in it for the greater good, do you? He is dreaming of his vacation in Barbados, paid for by the concerned residents of naperville. You mean like the ones the BB attorneys are taking ? The difference being his would not be tax dollars |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 21:47:56 GMT -6
$204 is a cheap ante.
|
|
|
|
Post by sushi on Mar 4, 2008 21:48:05 GMT -6
Right, Doc. Our tax dollars will be used to defend the lawsuit. More vacations, all around.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 4, 2008 22:11:34 GMT -6
Right, Doc. Our tax dollars will be used to defend the lawsuit. More vacations, all around. don't disagree, never said I was happy about that either - but I'm willing to bet it would be a fraction of what we are walking away from @ BB. I'm thinking I made a wrong career choice years ago  |
|
|
|
Post by wolverine on Mar 4, 2008 22:17:26 GMT -6
The group is requesting $204 from each participant. You don't think he in it for the greater good, do you? He is dreaming of his vacation in Barbados, paid for by the concerned residents of naperville. He stated he was a 203 resident, so there's very little greater good fom his point. I have heard he's well respected however. Personally, as a volunteer, I know you get what you pay for I'd rather shell out $$$ and get top-notch representation than get a "greater good" type working pro-bono. There was a very diverse crowd there today. I commented to a friend that I knew several of these folks from past pro-district activities. Times, they are a changin' |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 22:21:03 GMT -6
From some of the spit-back I have heard, I must say Dash was clever to throw out the 'entitled' word early on because that's the buzz word most people are using. People have really latched onto that phrase to frame 'that group'. Did he used to work for Karl Rove?
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 4, 2008 22:25:59 GMT -6
The group is requesting $204 from each participant. You don't think he in it for the greater good, do you? He is dreaming of his vacation in Barbados, paid for by the concerned residents of naperville. He stated he was a 203 resident, so there's very little greater good fom his point. I have heard he's well respected however. Personally, as a volunteer, I know you get what you pay for I'd rather shell out $$$ and get top-notch representation than get a "greater good" type working pro-bono. There was a very diverse crowd there today. I commented to a friend that I knew several of these folks from past pro-district activities. Times, they are a changin' Indeed in some sections a flashback could have been to 204tk session or SB candidate rallye-party...I agree with Bob "Wolverine' Dylan above |
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Mar 4, 2008 22:29:18 GMT -6
Exactly. Suing ourselves. The best part is getting WE in the paper again. For the record, I know a LOT of people in WE are NOT participating in this lawsuit. It is a group largely uninvolved until the new boundaries were announced. I really try to see the best in people, but I am absolutely ashamed to be neighbors to some of these people. I was at the last HO meeting. The principals are EXTREMELY uninformed, even about things in the paper ad nauseum. I don't recall ONE word about the safety of the site. It is all about going to the old school; not the perceived "best". I heard the TG HOA President will be there. I can't wait to hear what happens. Wish I wasn't sick as a dog! Have to be careful not to take a myopic view of this issue. In the group tonight also were people ( I would say many, but not sure whaty qualifies as many so I won't) from areas that are not WE and TG. It's not all about those areas. This is not a TG deal - or a WE deal, it is broader than that. For those who attended the issue to be adressed is not boundaries, that was made very clear. Since the press was there I am not giving away any secrets here, the issue is the site and the purchase of that site based on what was told over and over again in writing and verbally to voters in this district. Yes people are very aware of how the referendum read - people also are very aware of the timelines and the wording in 204 documents as well as the condemnation suit that read we will build at BB. Regardless of what the referendum said, we did not vote for AME. And the fact that AME was deemed a bad site in an official 204 document - can't be sloughed off as they just didn't do due diligence on that report, because then everything they've ever writtten should be in question. The lawsuit would have nothing to do with boundaries.. It will be very interesting. Doc, Maybe you can help me understand the endgame here. Is it that they want the SB to buy BB? Do they want the SB to abandon the 3rd HS? What is the hope at the end of the day? |
|
|
|
Post by newbie on Mar 4, 2008 22:30:08 GMT -6
Too funny arch..
However, Karl Rove would be saavy enough not to use such a stupid word as "entitled".
Unless he wanted to throw gas on the fire. Why else would Daeschner have said such a thing? Really, really stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 4, 2008 22:35:10 GMT -6
Too funny arch.. However, Karl Rove would be saavy enough not to use such a stupid word as "entitled". Unless he wanted to throw gas on the fire. Why else would he have said such a thing? Rove would have called MWGEN "Freedom Site" So naturally, you would be against freedom to say anything unsupportive. |
|
|
|
Post by drdavelasik on Mar 4, 2008 22:35:53 GMT -6
Right, Doc. Our tax dollars will be used to defend the lawsuit. More vacations, all around. I am sure that there are many people that gave more than that amount to various campaigns to get some of our current school board members in office. Seems like a small amount to me in the grand scheme. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Mar 4, 2008 22:39:19 GMT -6
Have to be careful not to take a myopic view of this issue. In the group tonight also were people ( I would say many, but not sure whaty qualifies as many so I won't) from areas that are not WE and TG. It's not all about those areas. This is not a TG deal - or a WE deal, it is broader than that. For those who attended the issue to be adressed is not boundaries, that was made very clear. Since the press was there I am not giving away any secrets here, the issue is the site and the purchase of that site based on what was told over and over again in writing and verbally to voters in this district. Yes people are very aware of how the referendum read - people also are very aware of the timelines and the wording in 204 documents as well as the condemnation suit that read we will build at BB. Regardless of what the referendum said, we did not vote for AME. And the fact that AME was deemed a bad site in an official 204 document - can't be sloughed off as they just didn't do due diligence on that report, because then everything they've ever writtten should be in question. The lawsuit would have nothing to do with boundaries.. It will be very interesting. Doc, Maybe you can help me understand the endgame here. Is it that they want the SB to buy BB? Do they want the SB to abandon the 3rd HS? What is the hope at the end of the day? again, I had to leave before the end -- but what I got was 1/ people there ( with very few exceptions in the crowd ) acknowledge the need for the 3rd HS - 2/ It is the site/ location that is the center of multiple issues and how we ended up there 3/ Yes one outcome would be to fulfill the promise and buy BB - whatever that takes anyone else there that can add to this, or anything I missed after I left ? |
|
|
|
Post by fryfox on Mar 4, 2008 22:42:35 GMT -6
I couldn't be at the meeting tonight, but would have if I could have. I am just getting up to speed on what's going on and to me it seems they are right on target.
To those with the comments about the cost to the taxpayers - I couldn't agree more and I'm very disappointed that it has had to come to this. The SB tuned everyone out and now we'll probably have to pay for electing them. Unfortunately, I have investigated all avenues at our disposal through the state and the Illinois State Board of Education. EVERYTHING is decided locally. The ISBE will not get involved because IL is a local-governed state. There is no recall law in Illinois (though there is in 30 other states) - to try to recall the elected officials. So, they won't listen and there are no checks & balances in place. They leave people with no other choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleeplessinnpvl on Mar 4, 2008 22:46:55 GMT -6
Ok, I'll take a plunge and jump in with my thoughts. I was at the meeting tonight. I thought it was calm and sincere. These people are, like Doc said, running on the premise that the SB did a bait and switch. They can't ask for it to be at Macom. They can't ask to go back to NV. They can only ask for the SB to keep their promise and build on BB.
I was amazed at the number of people just opening their checkbooks! They complained on one hand how the SD rushed into buying Eola yet they are rushing into a lawsuit that they aren't even thinking about the consequences if they win. The attorney was very honest though in that if they win, the ramifications are that the SB builds on BB which we know won't happen or we are back to square one with another referendum. And basically there's no guarantee that the good ol' Reverend will sit around while we go to court. He may sell his property and then we have nowhere to build. So we are looking at a referendum to OK 2 megaschools.
I guess I have a problem with a small amount of people trying to significantly change the ramifications of this 3rd HS. I really don't think 70% of 204 is not OK with this site. The actions of a few people can really impact all of us.
I also am a bit confused by their logic. I could really have supported them if they stressed environmental concerns. That does not seem to be their case. They are going on "they promised us this school with this boundaries" and then changed them on us. To me, if I were a judge, I would need them to show proof that the school board fraudulently deceived us and never intended to build on BB or use those boundaries. I don't believe they could prove that. If our Illinois governor promises us no taxes if we vote him in and then changes his mind and raises taxes, can we sue him? IMO the board acted responsibly by finding a cheaper site and building on it. Is that exceeding their discretion? Would a judge see this as a good thing or bad? I think good. People would have been in more of an outrage if they would have proceeded with BB at all costs.
|
|
