|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 3, 2010 8:20:20 GMT -6
Woops, someone let the cat out of the bag: ""I don't think it is our responsibility to pay for the state's mismanagement of funds," said parent Jennifer Streder, who is the president of the Indian Prairie Parents Council."I'd rather see a referendum pass here than see the state income tax increase, because in the long term I don't think that money will stay in the district.""www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/2138328,2_1_AU03_PROTEST_S1-100403.article loose lips sink ships-- and this would be strike 2 for said speaker. "I don't think it is our responsibility to pay for the state's mismanagement of funds," is tantamount to the "pot calling the kettle black" I suspect a referendum will fly about as well as calling an entire subdivision racist, Jennifer. |
|
|
|
Post by brant on Apr 3, 2010 9:59:44 GMT -6
loose lips sink ships-- and this would be strike 2 for said speaker. "I don't think it is our responsibility to pay for the state's mismanagement of funds," is tantamount to the "pot calling the kettle black" I suspect a referendum will fly about as well as calling an entire subdivision racist, Jennifer. Speaking of calling an entire subdivision racist I wonder why Brookdale never got that label seeing they were so desperate to get out of WV. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 3, 2010 10:05:18 GMT -6
"I don't think it is our responsibility to pay for the state's mismanagement of funds," is tantamount to the "pot calling the kettle black" I suspect a referendum will fly about as well as calling an entire subdivision racist, Jennifer. Speaking of calling an entire subdivision racist I wonder why Brookdale never got that label seeing they were so desperate to get out of WV. Because they used the oldest trick in the book of deflection and redirection...IE: the big mouths stuck the label to someone else first. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 3, 2010 12:54:07 GMT -6
loose lips sink ships-- and this would be strike 2 for said speaker. "I don't think it is our responsibility to pay for the state's mismanagement of funds," is tantamount to the "pot calling the kettle black" I suspect a referendum will fly about as well as calling an entire subdivision racist, Jennifer. Yes, that's one part of the past that the public is unlikely to forget. That comment and the board's silence regarding it are things I will never forget. They impacted my decisions regarding the district (ie: private school). |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 3, 2010 15:37:52 GMT -6
Very much like this blog! yet you felt the need to post this... Congratulations. Making information available for people is an accomplishment unto itself..what they do with it is their business. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 4, 2010 20:39:02 GMT -6
You can't help but wonder how many of the affected teachers would have kept their jobs if MV had not been built. KB points out the funds for MV came from a different source (Taxpayers) but what about the legal garbage with BB, lawsuits, etc? Of course ST is a MV parent. or the fact that they spent well over $145M -- ONLY $124 M came from the referendum... let them stand up in front of everyone in this district and explain the bond financing and where those delta funds came from.. where's the article on that ? MV cost a whole lot of people in this district, it forever divided the 204 community, wasted tax dollars- increased operating expenses by a minimum of $3M for the 3rd school, increased transportation costs due to where it was put--- and we don't need the damn thing. Even our super now admits it will be underutilized - AT BEST 2200-2300 and only for the next 4-5 years then decreases, then kiss Waubonsie goodbye, regardless of her snarkiness to the contrary. Yes, kids are going to suffer for this and that is the ONLY part I feel for, but people need to look in the mirror for the cause. For all those who wanted their northern Taj Mahal no matter what - starting with former Board President Jeannette Clark ( to the point where she marched in protest against people in the district she was elected to represent)- you got it - now live with the crappy circumstances. The sad thing is you pulled the rest of the district in the hole with you - nice job. Many of this saw this coming - regardless of the state funding issues but and said so repeatedly. SB candidates who showed charts on the topics of the deficit looming here ( not just late payments) were mocked by M2 and his PTSA minions. Who had the right numbers now ? It's now my turn to tell someone to ' sit down, and shut up' , just like I and others were told with our concerns -- enjoy your trip to Springfield. Maybe I can find a google map to get you these in 20 minutes or so. let me get this straight....If we didn't build a third HS and hurt some folks feelings in the process then we would be laughing at the hundreds of school districts in the red because 204 would be high and dry and in the black? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 4, 2010 20:40:23 GMT -6
We'd be more towards the black, if not in it... if we had not built it. Yup.
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 4, 2010 20:51:36 GMT -6
We'd be more towards the black, if not in it... if we had not built it. Yup. vote no next time. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 4, 2010 20:55:16 GMT -6
We'd be more towards the black, if not in it... if we had not built it. Yup. vote no next time. Having the authority to issue bonds and voting whether to actually do it or not was up to the board to do their homework. But you're absolutely right on that specific point. I will vote NO on everything going forward. Shame on me for ever saying Yes and believing the bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 4, 2010 20:56:56 GMT -6
Having the authority to issue bonds and voting whether to actually do it or not was up to the board to do their homework. But you're absolutely right on that specific point. I will vote NO on everything going forward. Shame on me for ever saying Yes and believing the bullshit. I don't blame you for not trusting elected officials when it comes to your $$$$$$ |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 4, 2010 21:54:50 GMT -6
or the fact that they spent well over $145M -- ONLY $124 M came from the referendum... let them stand up in front of everyone in this district and explain the bond financing and where those delta funds came from.. where's the article on that ? MV cost a whole lot of people in this district, it forever divided the 204 community, wasted tax dollars- increased operating expenses by a minimum of $3M for the 3rd school, increased transportation costs due to where it was put--- and we don't need the damn thing. Even our super now admits it will be underutilized - AT BEST 2200-2300 and only for the next 4-5 years then decreases, then kiss Waubonsie goodbye, regardless of her snarkiness to the contrary. Yes, kids are going to suffer for this and that is the ONLY part I feel for, but people need to look in the mirror for the cause. For all those who wanted their northern Taj Mahal no matter what - starting with former Board President Jeannette Clark ( to the point where she marched in protest against people in the district she was elected to represent)- you got it - now live with the crappy circumstances. The sad thing is you pulled the rest of the district in the hole with you - nice job. Many of this saw this coming - regardless of the state funding issues but and said so repeatedly. SB candidates who showed charts on the topics of the deficit looming here ( not just late payments) were mocked by M2 and his PTSA minions. Who had the right numbers now ? It's now my turn to tell someone to ' sit down, and shut up' , just like I and others were told with our concerns -- enjoy your trip to Springfield. Maybe I can find a google map to get you these in 20 minutes or so. let me get this straight....If we didn't build a third HS and hurt some folks feelings in the process then we would be laughing at the hundreds of school districts in the red because 204 would be high and dry and in the black? show me where I said laughing at other school districts in my statement anywhere ? Please do not try and discredit by made up mockery - try and actually use facts... this has nothing to do with feelings, it has to do with needless waste of finite funds. We were in much better shape than most districts BEFORE this fiasco, yes - and that was highly touted by our leaders here UNLESS they fibbed about that too. answer these simple questions - SD 1/ are we still in the red even if the state cut us a check today ? Yes or No ? 2/ Did people not clearly point this out in the last SB election process Yes of No ? 3/ Did the data not come directly from the SD documents ? Yes or No ? 4/ Would we not be in much better shape if we did not have $3-$3.5M per year in additional operating expenses for the new school Yes or No ? 5/ Would we not be in better financial shape if we did not add close to $1M additional transportation costs per year ? Yes or No ? 6/ Would be not be better off had we not spent $5M ( minimum) - $10M maximum in expediting a HS they knew there was no longer a crushing need for regardless of whether one believes we eventually needed it or not ? Yes or No ? 7/ Would we not be better off had we not spent $150m instead of the $124M allowed by the referendum- again regardless of stance on school need ? Yes or No ? 8/ Would we not be better off had we had 'retired" Millions of dollars in debt ' refinanced' out another 20 years ( at the time it was done) - in order to build said HS ? Yes or No ? 9/ Would we not be better off financially is we did not owe BB Millions of dollars on a lawsuit that would not exist if not for the 3rd HS ? Yes or No ? Is any part of this at all confusing ? Please feel free to address any 'No' responses you reached above with actual factual rebuttal. & please leave the snarky attempts at sidetracking factual basis to personal feelings to those who do it better than you..we have some elected experts So no, the world would not be rosy IF the State renegged on the monies they owe us, but we will get the money , albeit unacceptably late and potentially short some %. HOWEVER that % was likely covered this year at least if not for the issues above. Answer me this - why is 203 not in the position we are ? because they only built what was needed and instead of spending $26M more than they were voted- they are going to spend $5M-$8M less. I want to see the 'caravan' answer questions like this from state officials who give a rat's backside about where the 3rd school went but will ask why for the reasons above. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 4, 2010 22:25:09 GMT -6
We'd be more towards the black, if not in it... if we had not built it. Yup. vote no next time. More garbage. How about full disclosure next time so voters have the facts. How about some true transparency for a change? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 4, 2010 22:37:17 GMT -6
Read PMs...
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 4, 2010 22:43:33 GMT -6
let me get this straight....If we didn't build a third HS and hurt some folks feelings in the process then we would be laughing at the hundreds of school districts in the red because 204 would be high and dry and in the black? show me where I said laughing at other school districts in my statement anywhere ? Please do not try and discredit by made up mockery - try and actually use facts... this has nothing to do with feelings, it has to do with needless waste of finite funds. We were in much better shape than most districts BEFORE this fiasco, yes - and that was highly touted by our leaders here UNLESS they fibbed about that too. answer these simple questions - SD 1/ are we still in the red even if the state cut us a check today ? Yes or No ? 2/ Did people not clearly point this out in the last SB election process Yes of No ? 3/ Did the data not come directly from the SD documents ? Yes or No ? 4/ Would we not be in much better shape if we did not have $3-$3.5M per year in additional operating expenses for the new school Yes or No ? 5/ Would we not be in better financial shape if we did not add close to $1M additional transportation costs per year ? Yes or No ? 6/ Would be not be better off had we not spent $5M ( minimum) - $10M maximum in expediting a HS they knew there was no longer a crushing need for regardless of whether one believes we eventually needed it or not ? Yes or No ? 7/ Would we not be better off had we not spent $150m instead of the $124M allowed by the referendum- again regardless of stance on school need ? Yes or No ? 8/ Would we not be better off had we had 'retired" Millions of dollars in debt ' refinanced' out another 20 years ( at the time it was done) - in order to build said HS ? Yes or No ? 9/ Would we not be better off financially is we did not owe BB Millions of dollars on a lawsuit that would not exist if not for the 3rd HS ? Yes or No ? Is any part of this at all confusing ? Please feel free to address any 'No' responses you reached above with actual factual rebuttal. & please leave the snarky attempts at sidetracking factual basis to personal feelings to those who do it better than you..we have some elected experts So no, the world would not be rosy IF the State renegged on the monies they owe us, but we will get the money , albeit unacceptably late and potentially short some %. HOWEVER that % was likely covered this year at least if not for the issues above. Answer me this - why is 203 not in the position we are ? because they only built what was needed and instead of spending $26M more than they were voted- they are going to spend $5M-$8M less. I want to see the 'caravan' answer questions like this from state officials who give a rat's backside about where the 3rd school went but will ask why for the reasons above. please refer to my post directly above yours. thought I summed it up pretty well..... question number one is huge...there are a lot of ways to cut costs or be financially responsible. not taking on ADK could be an answer to being in the black. I am sure there are others. questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact. I do not know much about 203 but sounds like you found a new district to live in. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 4, 2010 22:58:52 GMT -6
show me where I said laughing at other school districts in my statement anywhere ? Please do not try and discredit by made up mockery - try and actually use facts... this has nothing to do with feelings, it has to do with needless waste of finite funds. We were in much better shape than most districts BEFORE this fiasco, yes - and that was highly touted by our leaders here UNLESS they fibbed about that too. answer these simple questions - SD 1/ are we still in the red even if the state cut us a check today ? Yes or No ? 2/ Did people not clearly point this out in the last SB election process Yes of No ? 3/ Did the data not come directly from the SD documents ? Yes or No ? 4/ Would we not be in much better shape if we did not have $3-$3.5M per year in additional operating expenses for the new school Yes or No ? 5/ Would we not be in better financial shape if we did not add close to $1M additional transportation costs per year ? Yes or No ? 6/ Would be not be better off had we not spent $5M ( minimum) - $10M maximum in expediting a HS they knew there was no longer a crushing need for regardless of whether one believes we eventually needed it or not ? Yes or No ? 7/ Would we not be better off had we not spent $150m instead of the $124M allowed by the referendum- again regardless of stance on school need ? Yes or No ? 8/ Would we not be better off had we had 'retired" Millions of dollars in debt ' refinanced' out another 20 years ( at the time it was done) - in order to build said HS ? Yes or No ? 9/ Would we not be better off financially is we did not owe BB Millions of dollars on a lawsuit that would not exist if not for the 3rd HS ? Yes or No ? Is any part of this at all confusing ? Please feel free to address any 'No' responses you reached above with actual factual rebuttal. & please leave the snarky attempts at sidetracking factual basis to personal feelings to those who do it better than you..we have some elected experts So no, the world would not be rosy IF the State renegged on the monies they owe us, but we will get the money , albeit unacceptably late and potentially short some %. HOWEVER that % was likely covered this year at least if not for the issues above. Answer me this - why is 203 not in the position we are ? because they only built what was needed and instead of spending $26M more than they were voted- they are going to spend $5M-$8M less. I want to see the 'caravan' answer questions like this from state officials who give a rat's backside about where the 3rd school went but will ask why for the reasons above. please refer to my post directly above yours. thought I summed it up pretty well..... question number one is huge...there are a lot of ways to cut costs or be financially responsible. not taking on ADK could be an answer to being in the black. I am sure there are others. questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact. I do not know much about 203 but sounds like you found a new district to live in. "questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact." Not if the Board failed to apprise the voters of all the facts. Very simple fact you seem to constantly ignore. If the voters are under one set of assumptions when they vote, and the Board fails to disclose the situation as it truly is, for whatever reason, how can a voter truly be held accountable for their vote? |
|
