|
Post by momto4 on Aug 26, 2008 5:18:06 GMT -5
Indian Prairie announces school board candidates
August 26, 2008
By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com
Twenty-three Indian Prairie School District 204 residents applied to fill the board seat vacated earlier this month by Bruce Glawe.
Those applicants are Karen Ambre, Stephen Calcaterra, Cynthia Cobb, Michelle Davis, Dawn DeSart, Keith Hammelman, Eric Hepburn, Yuming Huang, Suzanne Keating, Michael McGinnis, Robert Morales, Cathy Piehl, Jeffrey Price, Mark Rising, Bryan Scherer, Marjorie Sillery, Alvin Smith, Sherry Tatar, Laura Thomson, Barbara Untch, Janey Wagner, David Wilson and Kevin Yusman.
The board accepted their applications and planned a meeting for 8 p.m. Thursday, during which it will discuss which of these applicants it wants to interview.
The board also determined that the interviews with the chosen applicants would be conducted at the 7 p.m. Sept. 8 board meeting.
Glawe announced his resignation from the board Aug. 6. He said his decision to resign was based on his desire to spend more time with his family and his need to spend more time at work. He is the president and CEO of a local bank.
Glawe was appointed to the seven-member board in 2004 and was elected in 2005 to serve a four-year term. His current term would have ended in April 2009.
Whomever the board appoints to fill the vacancy will serve out the rest of Glawe's term.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Aug 26, 2008 7:25:20 GMT -5
Now the fun begins.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Aug 26, 2008 11:21:51 GMT -5
I would be interested to see all the candidates' resumes. I have heard some people saying that Michelle Davis should automaticallly be chosen since she was the "runner up" in the election. While I am not bashing MD, I would think that the SB should choose the candidate that is the most qualified. There are many new names on this list that should be given consideration.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 26, 2008 11:29:49 GMT -5
I would be interested to see all the candidates' resumes. I have heard some people saying that Michelle Davis should automaticallly be chosen since she was the "runner up" in the election. While I am not bashing MD, I would think that the SB should choose the candidate that is the most qualified. There are many new names on this list that should be given consideration. Just because someone placed 4th in the previous election does not mean they are most qualified. All the results of the previous election prove is that either not as many people supported her candidacy or more people felt those who placed below her less desireable or a combination of the above.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 26, 2008 11:55:10 GMT -5
It simply means she got the 4th most votes out of anyone on the ballot. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 26, 2008 11:57:59 GMT -5
I would be interested to see all the candidates' resumes. I have heard some people saying that Michelle Davis should automaticallly be chosen since she was the "runner up" in the election. While I am not bashing MD, I would think that the SB should choose the candidate that is the most qualified. There are many new names on this list that should be given consideration. I guess this is one advantage over an election. The board does get to see who is most qualified, not just the most popular (or 4th popular). As in a job interview, they should be looking for the candidate that brings the most to the table. If the district population does not like that choice, or feels the chosen candidate is a poor performer after a few months, they will have an opportunity to vote for a replacement in April. I would encourage D204 residents to give whoever is chosen a chance before we throw anyone to the wolves prior to them even taking a seat in the chair.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 26, 2008 15:18:12 GMT -5
Looking over the list it is interesting to see Steven Calcaterra on. He was backed by CV and the old CFO folk in the last SB election.
That isn't to say he still believes in the CFO, just a mention as to who backed him before.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 26, 2008 15:20:12 GMT -5
Looking over the list it is interesting to see Steven Calcaterra on. He was backed by CV and the old CFO folk in the last SB election. That isn't to say he still believes in the CFO, just a mention as to who backed him before. Those are the folks whose enrollment numbers were more on target than NIUs, right?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 26, 2008 15:22:13 GMT -5
Looking over the list it is interesting to see Steven Calcaterra on. He was backed by CV and the old CFO folk in the last SB election. That isn't to say he still believes in the CFO, just a mention as to who backed him before. Those are the folks who's enrollment numbers were more on target than NIUs, right? Thank God the economy turned bad when it did, otherwise the CFO would have egg in their face.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 26, 2008 15:25:13 GMT -5
Those are the folks who's enrollment numbers were more on target than NIUs, right? Thank God the economy turned bad when it did, otherwise the CFO would have egg in their face. Now, the Districts sports the Hollandaise sauce and we get the bill.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 26, 2008 15:32:54 GMT -5
Thank God the economy turned bad when it did, otherwise the CFO would have egg in their face. Now, the Districts sports the Hollandaise sauce and we get the bill. Anyway, back on topic and again, for those who are unaware, Steven Calcaterra was backed by the old CFO folk. He also seemed to have little time for it, IIRC, he was unable to attend at least two of the candidate forums. For those who do not recall what the CFO was, citizens for options, the group that fought to defeat the 3rd high school referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 26, 2008 15:40:26 GMT -5
RE: CFO
One of those 'options' called for less costly additions to NVHS, which it was designed for and other lower cost solutions to the MS overcrowding; even building a cheaper MS on the 25 acres of the BB property we already owned was one of those 'options'.
When people look at their tax bill and the enrollment numbers, they can decide for themselves which direction they feel would have been best.
Thanks for pointing this out, GM.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 26, 2008 15:53:07 GMT -5
RE: CFO One of those 'options' called for less costly additions to NVHS, which it was designed for and other lower cost solutions to the MS overcrowding; even building a cheaper MS on the 25 acres of the BB property we already owned was one of those 'options'. When people look at their tax bill and the enrollment numbers, they can decide for themselves which direction they feel would have been best. Thanks for pointing this out, GM. Yep. I believe the engineers pointed out that additions to NV might give more classroom space but the issue, as always, becomes the common areas. The design of NV is not ideal for traffic patterns. The CFO also wanted to add on to WV, that would have been what, 8th or 9th addition. Makes for getting around a bit tricky but whatever. I believe they were pushing mega-schools and that would be just fine with them. Of course with the potential growth of this district, the rate it had been growing (NOBODY could have predicted the economy tanking) a 3rd high school was needed and is still needed, and the voters agreed. Again, just mentioning Steven Calcaterra's connection with the old CFO folk. Some people have no problem paying taxes for a quality education, others who are unhappy for any number of reasons can always justify arguing against taxes to pay for education. That is only my view of things.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 26, 2008 15:59:10 GMT -5
RE: CFO One of those 'options' called for less costly additions to NVHS, which it was designed for and other lower cost solutions to the MS overcrowding; even building a cheaper MS on the 25 acres of the BB property we already owned was one of those 'options'. When people look at their tax bill and the enrollment numbers, they can decide for themselves which direction they feel would have been best. Thanks for pointing this out, GM. Time will play this out for judgement, won't need to even be debated at some point in time. That additional @ NV btw carried a $12M price tag and also accounted for traffic flow/hallway changes, and my understanding was requested by Howie.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 26, 2008 15:59:59 GMT -5
RE: CFO One of those 'options' called for less costly additions to NVHS, which it was designed for and other lower cost solutions to the MS overcrowding; even building a cheaper MS on the 25 acres of the BB property we already owned was one of those 'options'. When people look at their tax bill and the enrollment numbers, they can decide for themselves which direction they feel would have been best. Thanks for pointing this out, GM. Yep. I believe the engineers pointed out that additions to NV might give more classroom space but the issue, as always, becomes the common areas. The design of NV is not ideal for traffic patterns. The CFO also wanted to add on to WV, that would have been what, 8th or 9th addition. Makes for getting around a bit tricky but whatever. I believe they were pushing mega-schools and that would be just fine with them. Of course with the potential growth of this district, the rate it had been growing (NOBODY could have predicted the economy tanking) a 3rd high school was needed and is still needed, and the voters agreed. Again, just mentioning Steven Calcaterra's connection with the old CFO folk. Some people have no problem paying taxes for a quality education, others who are unhappy for any number of reasons can always justify arguing against taxes to pay for education. That is only my view of things. The counters to the additions at NV also (for whatever reason) assumed one could never build more common areas. Architects will design what is requested of them and if more common areas were requested I'm sure some firms in the area could design them. Personally, I think adding more to WVHS would have been a dumb move but I never saw anything convincing that said it would even be needed. Again, another straw man argument, it seems. Neither main building would have reverted back to all 4 years inside one building; which was why it was proposed to build the MS on the 25 acres of land we already bought and paid for. Not everyone in CFO was against spending any money to alleviate the capacity issues. In fact, the ones I met were certainly FOR spending money in other forms to solve them.. but I admit, certainly less than 150 million.
|
|