Vote-No's Credibility Challenged

[doctorwho]

soxfan said:

forthekids said:

Has anyone considered the fact that the people going to a VOTE NO meeting have pretty much decided to VOTE NO. I'm not sure that they sounded credible to a bunch of followers makes much difference. They need to sound credible to people who aren't on their band wagon. And, in my opinion, they don't. As we have clearly seen on this board, credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Forthekids

Trust me... I'm not on anyone's bandwagon and STILL haven't completely made up my mind... There is so much information out there. In my opinion, it's good to hear all different PERSPECTIVES out there.

I will attend the 204thekids TG meeting as well as the SB presentation to FRY and then try my best to make the best decision I can.

that's a more than fair statement -- all anyone can ask

[forthekids]

soxfan said:

forthekids said:

Has anyone considered the fact that the people going to a VOTE NO meeting have pretty much decided to VOTE NO. I'm not sure that they sounded credible to a bunch of followers makes much difference. They need to sound credible to people who aren't on their band wagon. And, in my opinion, they don't. As we have clearly seen on this board, credibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Forthekids

Trust me... I'm not on anyone's bandwagon and STILL haven't completely made up my mind... There is so much information out there. In my opinion, it's good to hear all different PERSPECTIVES out there.

I will attend the 204thekids TG meeting as well as the SB presentation to FRY and then try my best to make the best decision I can.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were on anyone's band wagon. I used your post as a way to get that question in. I respect everyone's right to make informed decisions for themselves and if you come to a NO decision based on those informed decisions, then I would respect you for that. And, I admire you for taking the time and making the effort to explore all avenues.

[soxfan]

thanks forthekids

[charmant]

forthekids said:

charmant said:

FACT CFO spoke by invitation

FACT School Board didnt' feel that Tallgrass is a significant voting block...otherwise they would have been there to chat.
FACT Schoo'l Board is showing it's capacity to deal with extra curricular meetings. We need an outside company to analyze the current issue to make sure we are spending our 20 YEAR TAX DOLLAR COMMITTMENT correctly ps remember that the 2009 multi million dollar referendum has not only not been disclosed but not been voted on and accepted.

What a bunch of ****! You have no right to make blanket statements that are not based on any fact whatsoever. You have no idea why the SB didn't speak to the TG HOA. And to put words into the collective mouths of the SB like "didn't feel that Tallgrass is a significant voting block" is false, inaccurate and totally unfair and misleading. Also fairly typical of the Vote No tactics.

FACT ---------SB didn't show up tonight.

FACT ------------Tallgrass is a huge voting block not to be ignored

[forthekids]

soxfan said:

thanks forthekids

Your welcome.

[warriorpride]

Can you please expand on what was presented that sounded credible? I honestly can find a lot of holes in the information on their website.

The main point points that they seem to be making on the web site are:

- Refuting the SB's enrollment projections (stating that 1) peak enrollment will only ever be equal to the number of kids that are currently enrolled in grades 2-5 despite plenty of undeveloped residential land, and 2) when the current 8th grade class graduates HS, HS enrollment will immediately "begin to decline", despite the fact that district 203's has maintained at their peak enrollment for the last 10 years)

- Refuting the HS capacity numbers (as best as I can tell, they they don't refute that there is a capacity issue coming at the MS level). We've gone over this already and I hope we never have to see another discussion about the "capacity" of the Gold campuses, because it doesn't matter if the Gold campuses can hold 2,000, only freshman can go there - the issue is about capacity at the HS level. And there are clearly multiple versions of numbers floating around, and at some point I think that the school administrators are the ones that are best qualified to determine what it "optimum" capacity (my definition is from the SB "A school functions best at optimum capacity") - not on some formula purely based on square footage.

- The cost - They lay out the "total cost to the taxpayers" of the 3rd HS, based on total interest paid, and the additional cost to run a 3rd HS , etc. etc.

- They sprinkle in some things, like BB (cost and the lawsuit), Peterson being an example of "poor planning", and they still even include CV's idea of moving 6th grade back to the MSs.

So seriously, what did they present that was convincing?

[warriorpride]

charmant said:

forthekids said:

What a bunch of ****! You have no right to make blanket statements that are not based on any fact whatsoever. You have no idea why the SB didn't speak to the TG HOA. And to put words into the collective mouths of the SB like "didn't feel that Tallgrass is a significant voting block" is false, inaccurate and totally unfair and misleading. Also fairly typical of the Vote No tactics.

FACT ---------SB didn't show up tonight.

FACT ------------Tallgrass is a huge voting block not to be ignored

FACT: the SB wasn't invited to TG tonite for a Texas cage match with voteNo

FACT: the SB has, or will be attending informational meetings at practically every (if not every) school in the district

[doctorwho]

charmant said:

forthekids said:

What a bunch of ****! You have no right to make blanket statements that are not based on any fact whatsoever. You have no idea why the SB didn't speak to the TG HOA. And to put words into the collective mouths of the SB like "didn't feel that Tallgrass is a significant voting block" is false, inaccurate and totally unfair and misleading. Also fairly typical of the Vote No tactics.

FACT ---------SB didn't show up tonight.

FACT ------------Tallgrass is a huge voting block not to be ignored

FACT : The SB will be at Fry to hold the exact same discussion you would have had, I'm not buying the we're afraid of the PTA people argument

FACT: None of the 21 Voting blocks are to be ignored

[soxfan]

warriorpride said:

Can you please expand on what was presented that sounded credible? I honestly can find a lot of holes in the information on their website.

The main point points that they seem to be making on the web site are:

- Refuting the SB's enrollment projections (stating that 1) peak enrollment will only ever be equal to the number of kids that are currently enrolled in grades 2-5 despite plenty of undeveloped residential land, and 2) when the current 8th grade class graduates HS, HS enrollment will immediately "begin to decline", despite the fact that district 203's has maintained at their peak enrollment for the last 10 years)

- Refuting the HS capacity numbers (as best as I can tell, they they don't refute that there is a capacity issue coming at the MS level). We've gone over this already and I hope we never have to see another discussion about the "capacity" of the Gold campuses, because it doesn't matter if the Gold campuses can hold 2,000, only freshman can go there - the issue is about capacity at the HS level. And there are clearly multiple versions of numbers floating around, and at some point I think that the school administrators are the ones that are best qualified to determine what it "optimum" capacity (my definition is from the SB "A school functions best at optimum capacity") - not on some formula purely based on square footage.

- The cost - They lay out the "total cost to the taxpayers" of the 3rd HS, based on total interest paid, and the additional cost to run a 3rd HS , etc. etc.

- They sprinkle in some things, like BB (cost and the lawsuit), Peterson being an example of "poor planning", and they still even include CV's idea of moving 6th grade back to the MSs.

So seriously, what did they present that was convincing?

I'm speaking for myself here.

I found the capacity presentation to be well laid out. The problem I'm having with the district's information is that it's SIMPLY NOT clear enough for me to grasp. I can't find on their website the capacity information for each building at the high school or middle school level.

I've heard nothing but 8400 from the district. The ipsd site does not clarify (at least not convincingly enough for dummies like me) the current capacity for their buildings in a clear, convincing breakdown by building. I'm also not clear why the district has lowered their working optimal capacity number to 85% versus the 90% it was at last referendum.

I found myself agreeing with CFO that the district should have an independent evaluation of capacity done to tell us what the actual capacity is. If we could start from that number, maybe everyone could agree on what all these darn capacity numbers are.

The other part of the presentation that was intriguing was the way in which the two different sides are configuring the number of students coming into the district by household. CFO stated that they use a number of .242 per household to come up with a number of high school aged kids. It was stated that this is a number recommended by the city of naperville. Someone in attendance did ask for clarification on this percentage because it may have changed since last June when CFO cites it. The person thought it had changed in August.

I agree with you that the school administrators should be the best source to address this but, in my opinion, they are not doing a good job of doing this. The information on their site (at least when you click on capacity) is confusing to me. I also found HC's letter confused me even more. I understand why he wrote it but it didn't make the issue easier for me to understand. I left the meeting thinking the independent evaluation could go along way towards clearing this up once and for all.

[charmant]

soxfan said:

warriorpride said:

Can you please expand on what was presented that sounded credible? I honestly can find a lot of holes in the information on their website.

The main point points that they seem to be making on the web site are:

- Refuting the SB's enrollment projections (stating that 1) peak enrollment will only ever be equal to the number of kids that are currently enrolled in grades 2-5 despite plenty of undeveloped residential land, and 2) when the current 8th grade class graduates HS, HS enrollment will immediately "begin to decline", despite the fact that district 203's has maintained at their peak enrollment for the last 10 years)

- Refuting the HS capacity numbers (as best as I can tell, they they don't refute that there is a capacity issue coming at the MS level). We've gone over this already and I hope we never have to see another discussion about the "capacity" of the Gold campuses, because it doesn't matter if the Gold campuses can hold 2,000, only freshman can go there - the issue is about capacity at the HS level. And there are clearly multiple versions of numbers floating around, and at some point I think that the school administrators are the ones that are best qualified to determine what it "optimum" capacity (my definition is from the SB "A school functions best at optimum capacity") - not on some formula purely based on square footage.

- The cost - They lay out the "total cost to the taxpayers" of the 3rd HS, based on total interest paid, and the additional cost to run a 3rd HS , etc. etc.

- They sprinkle in some things, like BB (cost and the lawsuit), Peterson being an example of "poor planning", and they still even include CV's idea of moving 6th grade back to the MSs.

So seriously, what did they present that was convincing?

I'm speaking for myself here.

I found the capacity presentation to be well laid out. The problem I'm having with the district's information is that it's SIMPLY NOT clear enough for me to grasp. I can't find on their website the capacity information for each building at the high school or middle school level.

I've heard nothing but 8400 from the district. The ipsd site does not clarify (at least not convincingly enough for dummies like me) the current capacity for their buildings in a clear, convincing breakdown by building. I'm also not clear why the district has lowered their working optimal capacity number to 85% versus the 90% it was at last referendum.

I found myself agreeing with CFO that the district should have an independent evaluation of capacity done to tell us what the actual capacity is. If we could start from that number, maybe everyone could agree on what all these darn capacity numbers are.

The other part of the presentation that was intriguing was the way in which the two different sides are configuring the number of students coming into the district by household. CFO stated that they use a number of .242 per household to come up with a number of high school aged kids. It was stated that this is a number recommended by the city of naperville. Someone in attendance did ask for clarification on this percentage because it may have changed since last June when CFO cites it. The person thought it had changed in August.

I agree with you that the school administrators should be the best source to address this but, in my opinion, they are not doing a good job of doing this. The information on their site (at least when you click on capacity) is confusing to me. I also found HC's letter confused me even more. I understand why he wrote it but it didn't make the issue easier for me to understand. I left the meeting thinking the independent evaluation could go along way towards clearing this up once and for all.

Credibility is such a huge issue with this Referendum!!!!

The SB hasn't been able to get a true fact across yet!!

I say let an outside source look at the whole shebang and then we can have an objective opinion from professionals instead of part time volunteer individuals with personal agendas!! We would not trust VOLUNTEERS WITH OUR RETIREMENT FUNDS WORTH $125MILL

[gatormom]

What are the personal agendas? I have never been able to understand that one.

My husband is the chairman of the board for a very large credit union, volunteer position. There are plenty of people who volunteer in positions that involve other people's money.

The SB members have children who are or will be in our system, it matters to them. They want to get it right. Don't have to like them all, I just have to decide if I believe them.

[cantretirehere]

warriorpride said:

Question: are the VoteNO signs exclusively provided by voteno.org?

If so, I wonder how many people that are putting up a Vote No sign actually fully believe in and support the voteno.org position (capacity, projected enrollments, "much cheaper" options du jour, etc.), as opposed to those that just want the referendum to be voted down for their own reasons.

Any thoughts?

This was asked under the Brokdale & the Referendum thread but I didn't want to go off topic so I brought it over here.

I think that you find that different people's reasons for voting NO vary, and aren't necessarily the same arguments that CFO puts out. In fact, many people voting NO didn't even know about CFO until they saw the website on the VoteNo signs.

First let me say that I don't agree with many of these reasons. They are not all mine. I am merely listing the myriad of reasons that I have heard. You will see that many of them differ vastly from CFO.

Here are some of the reasons that I have heard for voting NO (not necessarily in order of frequency):


1. The max enrollment will be a bubble - let's take less expensive steps (maybe the same as CFO maybe not, maybe the same as the district options, maybe not) and ride out the storm.
2. I don’t understand how the district is arriving at their numbers, their assumptions seem faulty. I’ve asked for explanations but just get the same old rhetoric. I can’t trust these people.
3. The SB hasn't told me what the operating costs are so I won't vote yes til I know that figure is.
4. The same reason as number 2, plus, I want that figure in writing and guaranteed before I vote YES this month.
5. I was going to vote yes, but this new court proceeding with the condemnation makes me nervous. I can't vote YES until that's settled.
6. My kids are grown and I'm retired with an income that is not increasing. I don't want to leave my home. I can't afford the tax increase.
7. When my kids could have benefited from a less crowded HS environment they built one big HSs instead of 2 smaller ones. Now that my kids can't benefit, they want me to pay for it? Forget it.
8. When my kids could have benefited from a less crowded HS environment, they built the Freshmen centers instead of a 3rd HS. Helped a little but, my kid hated going there. Now that my kids can't benefit, they want me to pay for it? Forget it.
9. My kids went to school in trailers and that was okay, and now someone else's kid is too good to go to school in trailers? Screw 'em.
10. Three years ago the SD told us we didn't need a 3rd HS and we spent millions converting MSs to Golds. It's such a short time later and they say we do need a 3rd HS and going to spend more to convert a Gold back to MS! What's changed? I can't vote for this - they don't know what they're doing.
11. My kids are through the system so I don't give a $hit what happens now.
12. Even though my kids are small, I bought this big house and don't want to pay more taxes on it. If my taxes go up I'm going to have to move. I don't want to move. So I'm voting NO.
13. There are going to be board member changes between now and the New school opening. There is no guarantee that the boundaries won't change. I'd rather go to NV (or WV) with additions and a non-traditional schedule than to have my kids moved.
14. I don’t like the site they chose. It’s too expensive. That’s why I voted NO last time and that’s why I’m voting NO this time.
15. I don’t like the site they chose. The location $ucks (should have been more North/should have been more South). That’s why I voted NO last time and that’s why I’m voting NO this time.
16. I have to pay for tutoring because my kid isn’t being taught properly in school and now I have to pay for this too? No, way.
17. My kid will be fine in an overcrowded school so I’m not worried.

I'm sure there are others that I can't remember while typing this. You can see that a lot of these reasons aren't altruistic. These people have a right to their opinion, however. We must also realize that even though on the surface all YES votes may appear altruistic there are many that aren't. After actually hearing the above reasons spoken out loud I'm relatively certain that there are probably people of the mindframe thinking: My taxes aren't going up for 7 years so my kid can go to a bigger/emptier school plus my property value may go up even more than normally, and then I'm outta here and the longtimers can pay for it. With the average stay of a household in Naperville being 4 years this is quite likely. So, the non-altruistic shoe fits more than one foot. And it just points out that a reason for voting is a reason whether it's altruistic or not, and the vote generated by the reason counts whether it's altruistic or not.

Of course, you will also notice that the SB is not in the position to change some of these notions, but they are in the position to change others.

Anyway, I hope this helps anyone who is wondering whether or not Votes are being affected by the CFO campaign. You can see that there are a lot of strong feelings that have nothing to do with it.

BTW - you may ask why people possible would confide some of the not so nice reasons to me. It's because the people who know me, know that I am very empathetic and that I won't discount people's feelings as being invalid. Feelings are created by the real circumstances of a person's life. I won't condemn people for the way they feel (whether I agree or not)and in fact I can understand where they are coming from. So anyway, people tend to open up around me. I equally understand the feelings listed above, as well as those who are worried about the future of this district if a 3rd HS isn't built. Plus I remember some of these from the old CFO forum .

[wvhsparent]

CRH......Are you sure you did not go door to door in my subdiv???

[204parent]

soxfan said:

I found the capacity presentation to be well laid out. The problem I'm having with the district's information is that it's SIMPLY NOT clear enough for me to grasp. I can't find on their website the capacity information for each building at the high school or middle school level.

I've heard nothing but 8400 from the district. The ipsd site does not clarify (at least not convincingly enough for dummies like me) the current capacity for their buildings in a clear, convincing breakdown by building. I'm also not clear why the district has lowered their working optimal capacity number to 85% versus the 90% it was at last referendum.

soxfan,
I would agree that the district should be much more clear on their capacity numbers to clear up the confusion that exists. However, I think the district is great at educating kids, and if they say operating at 100% is not a good thing, I tend to believe them. Also, my common sense tells me they're right.

CFO seems to be clear on their numbers because they believe we can fill every seat, every period, every day and operate at 100% capacity. I just don't see how that's possible without degrading the curriculum. Did they explain how they think we can operate at 100% capacity? Did anyone even question them on this?

[warriorpride]

204parent said:

soxfan said:

I found the capacity presentation to be well laid out. The problem I'm having with the district's information is that it's SIMPLY NOT clear enough for me to grasp. I can't find on their website the capacity information for each building at the high school or middle school level.

I've heard nothing but 8400 from the district. The ipsd site does not clarify (at least not convincingly enough for dummies like me) the current capacity for their buildings in a clear, convincing breakdown by building. I'm also not clear why the district has lowered their working optimal capacity number to 85% versus the 90% it was at last referendum.

soxfan,
I would agree that the district should be much more clear on their capacity numbers to clear up the confusion that exists. However, I think the district is great at educating kids, and if they say operating at 100% is not a good thing, I tend to believe them. Also, my common sense tells me they're right.

CFO seems to be clear on their numbers because they believe we can fill every seat, every period, every day and operate at 100% capacity. I just don't see how that's possible without degrading the curriculum. Did they explain how they think we can operate at 100% capacity? Did anyone even question them on this?

Or how the alleged HS capacity is 10,200 (not including COD), but over 3200 of that is capacity for freshmen (ridiculous as that number is, it's major contributor to the 10.2k number and it's 1/3 of the alleged HS capacity, leaving "capacity" for Soph-Srs at less than 7K (2327 per class).

So, if they did a reality check on their numbers, their HS alleged capacity would be ~9300 (2327*4), which is 1000 lower than what's they're saying. An then, the 9300 is the "sardines in a can" number. Then take 9300 @ 90% and you get 8377 for optimal capacity - does the number 8400 as optimal capacity sound familiar?