|
Post by majorianthrax on Aug 30, 2008 17:53:15 GMT -5
In a SD as large as ours, there should be a rule requiring representation from all areas. I suppose that depends on where you live. If you lived in TG would you have a problem if two WE residents were elected to the SB but none from TG? You are after all from the same area.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Aug 30, 2008 18:46:59 GMT -5
If there was more representation for NV I would think it would make it easier since each SB member is assigned to a HS, right? It doesn't mean someone whose kids go to MV can't handle being the rep for NV though. I would like to see more NV representation, but I also want to see the board have the best members possible so really where they live shouldn't be a primary condition IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 30, 2008 20:50:39 GMT -5
In a SD as large as ours, there should be a rule requiring representation from all areas. I don't disagree that there needs to be more representation from the south on this SB but I do disagree with that. SB members should be looking out for ALL the students, not the students from their block. Out of curiosity, how could one tell from the pool of candidates to exclude them from the interviews? I hope they quantify their choice and each SB member who conducts interviews has a comparison chart and notes that can quantify the one selected against each of the other 5 to show us why they felt they were the best selection using specific examples.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 31, 2008 0:39:37 GMT -5
If there was more representation for NV I would think it would make it easier since each SB member is assigned to a HS, right? It doesn't mean someone whose kids go to MV can't handle being the rep for NV though. I would like to see more NV representation, but I also want to see the board have the best members possible so really where they live shouldn't be a primary condition IMO. In theory that is exactly the right sentiment- ( just as they should be looking out for more than their own block) - but you are going to find skeptics when each SB member lands exactly the HS their immediate area wanted even though it took splitting two ES's to accomplish that and one may say WE didn't get what they wanted- but they knew there was no room at the inn- so BG cut the best deal possible. Distance wise and time wise would have been just as easy to send them to MV vs. Watts or even Cowlishaw - already west of 59 and the east -south differences cancel out. All coincidence - maybe yes, maybe no, depends who you ask - so the location they live takes on a new life of it's own... I wish it didn't- but it does
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Aug 31, 2008 6:50:01 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1137509,6_1_NA31_D204BRD_S1.article D204 to interview six candidatesAugust 31, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com Indian Prairie School District 204's school board will interview six of the 24 residents who applied to fill the vacant seat on its dais. During its Thursday evening meeting, it determined it wanted to interview applicants Dawn DeSart, Suzanne Keating, Kathy Piehl, Mark Rising, Sherry Tatar and Barbara Untch. Board President Mark Metzger said Friday that the board will interview these candidates Sept. 8, and determine at that time if has a "consensus to appoint" one of them to fill the position on the board vacated earlier this month by Bruce Glawe. Should no such consensus be reached, it will extend interviews to other applicants, Metzger said. 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 first 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 gatordog on Aug 31, 2008 7:38:17 GMT -5
If there was more representation for NV I would think it would make it easier since each SB member is assigned to a HS, right? It doesn't mean someone whose kids go to MV can't handle being the rep for NV though. I would like to see more NV representation, but I also want to see the board have the best members possible so really where they live shouldn't be a primary condition IMO. In theory that is exactly the right sentiment- ( just as they should be looking out for more than their own block) - but you are going to find skeptics when each SB member lands exactly the HS their immediate area wanted even though it took splitting two ES's to accomplish that and one may say WE didn't get what they wanted- but they knew there was no room at the inn- so BG cut the best deal possible. Distance wise and time wise would have been just as easy to send them to MV vs. Watts or even Cowlishaw - already west of 59 and the east -south differences cancel out. All coincidence - maybe yes, maybe no, depends who you ask - so the location they live takes on a new life of it's own... I wish it didn't- but it does drwho, you are saying of course that for one recent SB decision (the boundaries) the deciding factor was SB member home address and conspiratoral deal making. There is the possiblity of another deciding factor on that decision: in their judgement and after getting input from the administration, it was the choice available that best met the criteria. Unless somebody can show a boundary plan that better meets the criteria, I find it unbelievably hard for these conspiracy theories to fly.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 31, 2008 8:08:59 GMT -5
In theory that is exactly the right sentiment- ( just as they should be looking out for more than their own block) - but you are going to find skeptics when each SB member lands exactly the HS their immediate area wanted even though it took splitting two ES's to accomplish that and one may say WE didn't get what they wanted- but they knew there was no room at the inn- so BG cut the best deal possible. Distance wise and time wise would have been just as easy to send them to MV vs. Watts or even Cowlishaw - already west of 59 and the east -south differences cancel out. All coincidence - maybe yes, maybe no, depends who you ask - so the location they live takes on a new life of it's own... I wish it didn't- but it does drwho, you are saying of course that for one recent SB decision (the boundaries) the deciding factor was SB member home address and conspiratoral deal making. There is the possiblity of another deciding factor on that decision: in their judgement and after getting input from the administration, it was the choice available that best met the criteria. Unless somebody can show a boundary plan that better meets the criteria, I find it unbelievably hard for these conspiracy theories to fly. I couldn't agree more. There are those who want to blame the SB for this, and yes, they had the final decision in making it stick, but the administration set the criteria and as best they could, stuck to that criteria. Yet the conspiracies fly. And there are those that seem to think that with 4 new board members, everything will change. There will be some changes, I'm sure, and that's not a bad thing. But there are some who seem to expect some apocolyptic changes, even if they have to wait until 2011. I think many forget how much service and dedication this board has put in and how much this district has benefitted. It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame. Be careful what you wish for, though. If people are in place and they ALL have their own agendas or are looking out for themselves and their own neighborhoods, we are likely to have a school board that gets NOTHING accomplished simply because they can't agree. I do hope that the SB can come to a consensus on Monday, simply so that the board can put its focus back on the education of our kids. Like with other issues that involve a lot of complaining about what the SB/SD do, we (the boards) tend to focus too much on what sidetracks the board. I'd like to see a full board again so they can get back to the real issues. From what I've seen/ heard of these candidates, I believe that most of them can do just that. I wish them all luck.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 31, 2008 9:22:19 GMT -5
In theory that is exactly the right sentiment- ( just as they should be looking out for more than their own block) - but you are going to find skeptics when each SB member lands exactly the HS their immediate area wanted even though it took splitting two ES's to accomplish that and one may say WE didn't get what they wanted- but they knew there was no room at the inn- so BG cut the best deal possible. Distance wise and time wise would have been just as easy to send them to MV vs. Watts or even Cowlishaw - already west of 59 and the east -south differences cancel out. All coincidence - maybe yes, maybe no, depends who you ask - so the location they live takes on a new life of it's own... I wish it didn't- but it does drwho, you are saying of course that for one recent SB decision (the boundaries) the deciding factor was SB member home address and conspiratoral deal making. There is the possiblity of another deciding factor on that decision: in their judgement and after getting input from the administration, it was the choice available that best met the criteria. Unless somebody can show a boundary plan that better meets the criteria, I find it unbelievably hard for these conspiracy theories to fly. I am saying it is feasable for someone to come to that conclusion based on the results- to deny that someone could connect those dots - right or wrong as I mentioned- is insincere. you can come to your own conlusion, I have no issue with that - but to blow it off as not possible I'm not buying into and the following is one of the reasons as for the best choice- since split schools were somethig to be avoided - we split 2 ES's to fit Owen East into WVHS - if that's an example of the best solution- I'd love to see the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 31, 2008 9:29:17 GMT -5
drwho, you are saying of course that for one recent SB decision (the boundaries) the deciding factor was SB member home address and conspiratoral deal making. There is the possiblity of another deciding factor on that decision: in their judgement and after getting input from the administration, it was the choice available that best met the criteria. Unless somebody can show a boundary plan that better meets the criteria, I find it unbelievably hard for these conspiracy theories to fly. I couldn't agree more. There are those who want to blame the SB for this, and yes, they had the final decision in making it stick, but the administration set the criteria and as best they could, stuck to that criteria. Yet the conspiracies fly. And there are those that seem to think that with 4 new board members, everything will change. There will be some changes, I'm sure, and that's not a bad thing. But there are some who seem to expect some apocolyptic changes, even if they have to wait until 2011. I think many forget how much service and dedication this board has put in and how much this district has benefitted. It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame. Be careful what you wish for, though. If people are in place and they ALL have their own agendas or are looking out for themselves and their own neighborhoods, we are likely to have a school board that gets NOTHING accomplished simply because they can't agree. I do hope that the SB can come to a consensus on Monday, simply so that the board can put its focus back on the education of our kids. Like with other issues that involve a lot of complaining about what the SB/SD do, we (the boards) tend to focus too much on what sidetracks the board. I'd like to see a full board again so they can get back to the real issues. From what I've seen/ heard of these candidates, I believe that most of them can do just that. I wish them all luck. No one questioned their time and dedication to their volunteer role- so we don't need a red herring discussion to try and draw the topic elsewhere. again if you are saying splitting two ES's in order to fit Owen East into WVHS was the best solution possible - when one of the criteria was to limit split schools - that's your call. I am saying one can see how someone would connect the dots to form a different conclusion. Whether that conclusion is right or not only the SB members and SD knows - not you nor I When people stop questioning things that seem to make less than perfect sense - I daresay we'll have bigger issues. Sorry to say it doesn't make them bad people
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 31, 2008 9:48:33 GMT -5
personally, and I think other posters have stated this too. I could really care less about splits.....In fact split em all.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 31, 2008 9:53:06 GMT -5
Disagreeing people get things done all the time in the real world by examining facts. I'd rather have my polar opposite on the same decision team as well as people in between so as to ensure as many points of views were considered before a decision was made. The biggest blunders in the world come from group-think mentalities and decisions done by 'yes' people who are too afraid to speak up and have the courage to say "Hey.. I think we need to stop for a moment and consider this....."
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 31, 2008 9:54:35 GMT -5
personally, and I think other posters have stated this too. I could really care less about splits.....In fact split em all. If one can not hold the criteria 100% across all schools, it's really not a valid criteria IMO. This is why we added ours at the HS level; no matter what area you are in, the criteria held true; period, the end.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 31, 2008 10:33:02 GMT -5
You seem to be implying that people from the south would not do so, while others would.
And many will not forget the BB debacle and how it was completely botched by this SB.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 31, 2008 10:55:38 GMT -5
personally, and I think other posters have stated this too. I could really care less about splits.....In fact split em all. I for the most part agree with you - however there are some that bring up splits as to why things couldn't be done differently for Watts / Cowlishaw etc-- and have raised over and over again, even in the last week or so in posts back to us who didn't see the crisis, on how this was one of the SB-SD admin MAIN criteria -- however seem to overlook it when they split Gombert and Owen just to fit one area into WVHS. Oh you'd spolit Steck, or you'd split McCarty - yet it was OK to split other schools - as well as create more satellites. Sorry, that's a confusing message. Remember the Hill split was one of the major causes of the heavy NO vote there on the BB bouidaries. One can't have it both ways is my point - not just when it fits one agenda and not another. Either it is a ( of THE ) ctiical critera or it's not You and I are in agreement - splits - if kids are going where it makes geographical sense- who cares.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 31, 2008 12:08:45 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more. There are those who want to blame the SB for this, and yes, they had the final decision in making it stick, but the administration set the criteria and as best they could, stuck to that criteria. Yet the conspiracies fly. And there are those that seem to think that with 4 new board members, everything will change. There will be some changes, I'm sure, and that's not a bad thing. But there are some who seem to expect some apocolyptic changes, even if they have to wait until 2011. I think many forget how much service and dedication this board has put in and how much this district has benefitted. It's all about discrediting the board, the administraton and placing blame. Be careful what you wish for, though. If people are in place and they ALL have their own agendas or are looking out for themselves and their own neighborhoods, we are likely to have a school board that gets NOTHING accomplished simply because they can't agree. I do hope that the SB can come to a consensus on Monday, simply so that the board can put its focus back on the education of our kids. Like with other issues that involve a lot of complaining about what the SB/SD do, we (the boards) tend to focus too much on what sidetracks the board. I'd like to see a full board again so they can get back to the real issues. From what I've seen/ heard of these candidates, I believe that most of them can do just that. I wish them all luck. No one questioned their time and dedication to their volunteer role- so we don't need a red herring discussion to try and draw the topic elsewhere. again if you are saying splitting two ES's in order to fit Owen East into WVHS was the best solution possible - when one of the criteria was to limit split schools - that's your call. I am saying one can see how someone would connect the dots to form a different conclusion. Whether that conclusion is right or not only the SB members and SD knows - not you nor I When people stop questioning things that seem to make less than perfect sense - I daresay we'll have bigger issues. Sorry to say it doesn't make them bad people I wasn't saying that at all (about the Owen split- it was never brought up in my post) nor was it a "red herring" question to direct the topic elsewhere. Trying to STAY on topic regarding the choosing of a school board member so the focus can get back to kids...again.
|
|