Sun Blog

[sleeplessinnpvl]

wolverine said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

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.

I think the legal strategy needed to be based on something they could act upon quickly.

Personally, I agree that the environmental issues should have been at the forefront. He did cite another district that spent 9 months doing due diligence on a farm property, yet we're trying to ram-rod ours through in a few weeks, on a site with significant environmental issues.

I'd say there were over 120 - 150 people there. Parking lot was full, as was the room.

I understand their "need for speed" on this issue if they are going to get the SB's attention. What I can't understand is people paying money to hire an attorney and trusting a small group of people who are going to work with that attorney to make a decision for them. If it were me, I would want to know what the lawsuit was going to ask before I shelled out the bucks.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

doctorwho said:

btw- some logisitics issues with your thoughts on 9-10 and 11-12 but good out of the box thinking -- seriously

Desperate times call for "out of the box thinking" I'm sorry but I'm just reliving a nightmare I thought I had put to bed two years ago.

[wolverine]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

doctorwho said:

btw- some logisitics issues with your thoughts on 9-10 and 11-12 but good out of the box thinking -- seriously

Desperate times call for "out of the box thinking" I'm sorry but I'm just reliving a nightmare I thought I had put to bed two years ago.

Me too..........

[researching]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

susan said:

Hi,

I am curious. This is to anyone who attended the meeting.

How many people were at the meeting? Did the group hire the attorney?

My guess (and I'm bad at estimating) was 150-200 people. It looked like they were going to hire him. But they did admit they don't have enough money yet to do a full fledge all out legal action.

I wasn't able to attend tonight but I will certainly be opening my checkbook. I suspect that they will not have a problem securing enough funds for "full fledge all out legal action".

[wolverine]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

wolverine said:

I think the legal strategy needed to be based on something they could act upon quickly.

Personally, I agree that the environmental issues should have been at the forefront. He did cite another district that spent 9 months doing due diligence on a farm property, yet we're trying to ram-rod ours through in a few weeks, on a site with significant environmental issues.

I'd say there were over 120 - 150 people there. Parking lot was full, as was the room.

I understand their "need for speed" on this issue if they are going to get the SB's attention. What I can't understand is people paying money to hire an attorney and trusting a small group of people who are going to work with that attorney to make a decision for them. If it were me, I would want to know what the lawsuit was going to ask before I shelled out the bucks.

I'm not sure the group will remain small. This is the small nucleus forming. Given the lack of information, or should I say mis-information handed out, I suspect once folks get the word out this group will grow quite large.

[twhl]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

wolverine said:

I think the legal strategy needed to be based on something they could act upon quickly.

Personally, I agree that the environmental issues should have been at the forefront. He did cite another district that spent 9 months doing due diligence on a farm property, yet we're trying to ram-rod ours through in a few weeks, on a site with significant environmental issues.

I'd say there were over 120 - 150 people there. Parking lot was full, as was the room.

I understand their "need for speed" on this issue if they are going to get the SB's attention. What I can't understand is people paying money to hire an attorney and trusting a small group of people who are going to work with that attorney to make a decision for them. If it were me, I would want to know what the lawsuit was going to ask before I shelled out the bucks.

Sorta like when everyone trusted a small group of people(SB) by voting yes to make decisions for us(D204). How ironic.

[Arch]

twhl said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

I understand their "need for speed" on this issue if they are going to get the SB's attention. What I can't understand is people paying money to hire an attorney and trusting a small group of people who are going to work with that attorney to make a decision for them. If it were me, I would want to know what the lawsuit was going to ask before I shelled out the bucks.

Sorta like when everyone trusted a small group of people(SB) by voting yes to make decisions for us(D204). How ironic.

To be fair though, one group was voted in to do that.

[twhl]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

susan said:

Hi,

I am curious. This is to anyone who attended the meeting.

How many people were at the meeting? Did the group hire the attorney?

My guess (and I'm bad at estimating) was 150-200 people. It looked like they were going to hire him. But they did admit they don't have enough money yet to do a full fledge all out legal action.

Armed guards ??

[twhl]

archwinsome said:

twhl said:

Sorta like when everyone trusted a small group of people(SB) by voting yes to make decisions for us(D204). How ironic.

To be fair though, one group was voted in to do that.

Sorry Arch, late will refrain

[sleeplessinnpvl]

twhl said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

My guess (and I'm bad at estimating) was 150-200 people. It looked like they were going to hire him. But they did admit they don't have enough money yet to do a full fledge all out legal action.

Armed guards ??

No armed guards and no talk of the bridge. Actually, everyone was very civilized and rational. I just think they were rushing into committing to something without thinking about the consequences or having a Plan B. (Gee, kind of like our SB)

[Arch]

twhl said:

archwinsome said:

To be fair though, one group was voted in to do that.

Sorry Arch, late will refrain

I didn't mean to imply one is more legitimate than the other. Both have their proper places in the entire process. Both can cause change in a big way. Due to the nature of an election, one group will be looked at more critically as being out for self-interests and will be vilified that way. That part has already happened because they were already given a prompted word by our Super Intendant at the onset of the Boundary meeting and it's sticking like a fly in a glue factory.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

wolverine said:

I'm not sure the group will remain small. This is the small nucleus forming. Given the lack of information, or should I say mis-information handed out, I suspect once folks get the word out this group will grow quite large.

Yeah, if I were a "vote no" gal, I would be all over this. Another opportunity to get rid of the 3rd HS. I will continue to preach and people can continue to disagree with me, but it is my opinion that if these people get what they want (to build at BB with the old boundaries) they will really get something else (a now needed new referendum which may now fail and we are left with overcrowded schools and three years wasted)

[slp]

In an effort to explain where I believe this group is coming from...

Basically the bottom line is that this group wants to school board to follow through with what it repeatedly told voters to secure passage of the referendum.

There were numerous district provided Q&A sheets, as well as numerous statements made by the school board that the referendum would allow the 3rd high school to be built at the BB site. The boundaries also became an integral part of how people voted...by design..by the school board. Curt Bradshaw even had to compromise his personal situation by stating he needed to vote on a boundary plan that would pass the referendum.


It should concern voters in this entire district that the principle violated by the school board is a dangerous precident to set.....to say one thing and do another. From what I am hearing from long time residents, this is not the first time the school board has done this and many are fed up.

[Arch]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

wolverine said:

I'm not sure the group will remain small. This is the small nucleus forming. Given the lack of information, or should I say mis-information handed out, I suspect once folks get the word out this group will grow quite large.

Yeah, if I were a "vote no" gal, I would be all over this. Another opportunity to get rid of the 3rd HS. I will continue to preach and people can continue to disagree with me, but it is my opinion that if these people get what they want (to build at BB with the old boundaries) they will really get something else (a now needed new referendum which may now fail and we are left with overcrowded schools and three years wasted)

Even by the Administration's funky math that did not have all costs of MWGEN factored in, the gap was what? $12 million difference at most? That's a cheap referendum. I would venture a guess people would come out of the woodwork to get out the YES vote more in that scenario (back at BB) even for an operating referendum than they would if it goes forward at MWGEN. I base that on the fact that they had to pull from such a large distance away simply to fill the north site and many being pulled were unhappy about it. Those most unhappy would be coming from the central/southern region where the population is greater.

Now, it's entirely possible that under that scenario many supportive of a northern site will flip around and be not supportive of the original site selection again. They'll have another uphill battle again like last time. They could get smart and package all of it together: AC, Construction Gap, and Operating. Something for everyone. Done, move forward and even AC in the ES's. It's "for the children".

[sleeplessinnpvl]

slp said:

In an effort to explain where I believe this group is coming from...

Basically the bottom line is that this group wants to school board to follow through with what it repeatedly told voters to secure passage of the referendum.

There were numerous district provided Q&A sheets, as well as numerous statements made by the school board that the referendum would allow the 3rd high school to be built at the BB site. The boundaries also became an integral part of how people voted...by design..by the school board. Curt Bradshaw even had to compromise his personal situation by stating he needed to vote on a boundary plan that would pass the referendum.


It should concern voters in this entire district that the principle violated by the school board is a dangerous precident to set.....to say one thing and do another. From what I am hearing from long time residents, this is not the first time the school board has done this and many are fed up.

slp, I agree with you that this is where they are coming from and I understand their right to be angry with the SB. However, welcome to America. This sort of thing is being done daily by our elected city, state and national representatives. I would like these elected officials to follow through on their promises too when they take my money but it doesn't always happen.

People may disagree with me, but I at least see an elected group of volunteers here who are trying to do the right thing. I can't say that for the group I elected in Springfield, Washington etc.