|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 9, 2008 11:39:13 GMT -5
This comment shows blatant disrespect for the principles on which our country and most democratic governments are set up. No matter how qualified someone is, it is unfair for a region to not be represented fairly. I have nothing against the new appointee, and she could be extremely competent. But there is a reason every state has two senators, that cities have alderman for different districts. We don't simply select the best people. I agree that the place to rectify this is in the voting booth. But it scares me to hear people support the SB's apparent opinion that it's okay to create imbalanced representation as long as the person chosen is qualified. I don't know what your objection is. This is District #204 and not just regions. As I have stated before a good candidate will represent all of the kids and not run just to change the boundarys because it suits their particular area. That would rekindle what has been going on for the last year. One thing does come to mind. I wonder if there were any SB candidates from Graham, Kendall, Clow, Welch, Builta, Georgetown or Patterson? It is like those areas haven't even existed for the last year. Since their areas are set and not affected by Metea or leaving their current schools it is like they are oblivious. The new school and SB should be of interest to all the district. Someone needs to light a fire under them
|
|
|
Post by gman413 on Sept 9, 2008 11:53:04 GMT -5
This comment shows blatant disrespect for the principles on which our country and most democratic governments are set up. No matter how qualified someone is, it is unfair for a region to not be represented fairly. I have nothing against the new appointee, and she could be extremely competent. But there is a reason every state has two senators, that cities have alderman for different districts. We don't simply select the best people. I agree that the place to rectify this is in the voting booth. But it scares me to hear people support the SB's apparent opinion that it's okay to create imbalanced representation as long as the person chosen is qualified. So we should overlook the best people in favor of geographic balance?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 9, 2008 12:02:34 GMT -5
Let me rephrase a little. I think the idea of have area representation is intriguing. How would you suggest it be done? 2 from ea HS attendance area or 1 from ea MS area or something else?
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 9, 2008 14:22:45 GMT -5
Let me rephrase a little. I think the idea of have area representation is intriguing. How would you suggest it be done? 2 from ea HS attendance area or 1 from ea MS area or something else? Yes, perhaps having three from each HS boundary for a total of nine.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 9, 2008 14:52:37 GMT -5
Let me rephrase a little. I think the idea of have area representation is intriguing. How would you suggest it be done? 2 from ea HS attendance area or 1 from ea MS area or something else? Yes, perhaps having three from each HS boundary for a total of nine. I don't buy it. I understand the thinking but it could also start a district war under the right circumstances. HS vs HS. Considering what happened her that is a very real possibility.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Sept 10, 2008 5:07:44 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=233854&src=76New Dist. 204 board member stresses communication, trust By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald Cathy Piehl realizes taking a seat on the Indian Prairie Unit District 204 school board is a big job. That's why she wanted it. Piehl, a stay-at-home mom from Naperville, was appointed to the district's vacant seat late Monday after a series of interviews and board discussions. She replaces Bruce Glawe, who resigned. A leader on the district's Parent Diversity Advisory Council and the group's Dialogue Circles program, Piehl said she has developed relationships that can help the board improve communication with parents and regain trust with the community. "I'm excited and hope to have the opportunity to help the board work on those issues," she said. "Parent involvement is so important to the success of our students. I really do believe that communication and trust are important pieces of the puzzle in the education process." In a written statement Tuesday, board President Mark Metzger agreed. "Cathy has developed relationships throughout the district, including in some areas the board has not reached," Metzger said. "Her talent and relationships are valuable additions to the board." A trained school social worker, Piehl also has served as a member of the May Watts and Waubonsie Valley PTAs and the Indian Prairie Parents Council, in addition to her advisory council work. "I want to take all of those relationships and use them to get a firmer grip on the partnership with our parents and formalize it," she said. "It's one thing to talk about it but it needs to be formalized a little bit better." Early in her tenure, Piehl said she will work to be both a voice and an ear for her constituents. "I'm sure I will be quiet early on but I'm listening," she said. "I know how important it is to not judge an idea until you've heard several viewpoints." She's not looking forward to April, however, when she will campaign to keep the seat for four more years in the district that covers portions of Naperville, Aurora, Plainfield and Bolingbrook. "I never would have run initially because it seems so daunting, but this was an opportunity I couldn't pass up," she said. "At least now in April I won't be coming in cold. I'll have established a reputation and background for voters to judge me on." When she's not volunteering, Piehl said she enjoys getting together with her family, which includes her three sons - a 2005 graduate of Waubonsie Valley High School, a senior at Waubonsie and a fourth-grader at May Watts Elementary. "We get together with family. That's what we've always liked to do," she said.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 10, 2008 6:42:49 GMT -5
Sounds like a great candidate. If she can bring some harmony and communication back to the district, she has my vote in April.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 10, 2008 9:58:03 GMT -5
Sounds like a great candidate. If she can bring some harmony and communication back to the district, she has my vote in April. Same here.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 10, 2008 10:02:56 GMT -5
This comment shows blatant disrespect for the principles on which our country and most democratic governments are set up. No matter how qualified someone is, it is unfair for a region to not be represented fairly. I have nothing against the new appointee, and she could be extremely competent. But there is a reason every state has two senators, that cities have alderman for different districts. We don't simply select the best people. I agree that the place to rectify this is in the voting booth. But it scares me to hear people support the SB's apparent opinion that it's okay to create imbalanced representation as long as the person chosen is qualified. So we should overlook the best people in favor of geographic balance? We, the voters, have the opportunity to select from among whomever chooses to run regardless of where they live. It seems unlikely that we would have qualified and interested candidates from every defined region of the district while not excluding some qualified and interested candidates because they happen to live in the same area as another excellent candidate. We need people who can see beyond their own back yard and look out for the interests of the entire district. Limiting by area of the district is counter to this very premise. We don't want people representing their own area. This is what Aurora has for its City Council and it makes sense there, but the purpose of city government and the purpose of a Board of Education are vastly different.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 10, 2008 10:41:27 GMT -5
Momto 4 ,Well said! My feelings to a tee.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 10, 2008 14:59:59 GMT -5
How? That school board members are expected to be non-partisan and other types of elected officials are not?
Would you be happy if all seven board members had absolutely impeccable credentials but all lived in Tall Grass? Or in Bolingbrook?
Would you be happy if all nine Supreme Court justices were ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal, even if they were highly qualified?
The point is that people can be extremely competent yet unavoidably all carry their own preferences, biases, agendas, and viewpoints about what they think is right for the district/city/country/world.
I don't know why this concept is so offensive to people here. To be honest, it's kind of the same "move on, shut up" attitude some of us are tired of.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 10, 2008 15:33:06 GMT -5
How? That school board members are expected to be non-partisan and other types of elected officials are not? Would you be happy if all seven board members had absolutely impeccable credentials but all lived in Tall Grass? Or in Bolingbrook? Would you be happy if all nine Supreme Court justices were ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal, even if they were highly qualified? The point is that people can be extremely competent yet unavoidably all carry their own preferences, biases, agendas, and viewpoints about what they think is right for the district/city/country/world. I don't know why this concept is so offensive to people here. To be honest, it's kind of the same "move on, shut up" attitude some of us are tired of. I contend that city business is different than school district business and that people who live in the same neighborhood do not all think the same. If the public wants to elect 7 people from Tall Grass or Bolingbrook or wherever, then so be it. In your Supreme Court example you are talking about people who share the same views, rather than saying all justices are from one city, so I'm not sure how that compares. Besides the fact that we don't get to elect people to the Supreme Court. I am also not understanding what your last sentence has to do with this.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 10, 2008 16:41:48 GMT -5
How? That school board members are expected to be non-partisan and other types of elected officials are not? Would you be happy if all seven board members had absolutely impeccable credentials but all lived in Tall Grass? Or in Bolingbrook? Would you be happy if all nine Supreme Court justices were ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal, even if they were highly qualified? The point is that people can be extremely competent yet unavoidably all carry their own preferences, biases, agendas, and viewpoints about what they think is right for the district/city/country/world. I don't know why this concept is so offensive to people here. To be honest, it's kind of the same "move on, shut up" attitude some of us are tired of. Regarding partisanship, putting boundaries aside (I don't even think that they need to be put aside), what do you suggest the SB members locations might theoretically influence? 7 candidates with clearly better credentials than everyone else, all from one subdivision is an unlikely scenario, so I'm not sure why you'd propose it. Piehl is from an area that some argued was not represented/"heard from". Not sure where you're getting the "shut up & move on" from. As with all things in any (large?) SD, clearly some people will be unhappy with each and every decision.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 10, 2008 17:21:27 GMT -5
How? That school board members are expected to be non-partisan and other types of elected officials are not? Would you be happy if all seven board members had absolutely impeccable credentials but all lived in Tall Grass? Or in Bolingbrook? Would you be happy if all nine Supreme Court justices were ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal, even if they were highly qualified? The point is that people can be extremely competent yet unavoidably all carry their own preferences, biases, agendas, and viewpoints about what they think is right for the district/city/country/world. I don't know why this concept is so offensive to people here. To be honest, it's kind of the same "move on, shut up" attitude some of us are tired of. Because this is a School Board and not the Supreme Court or our political officials. School Boards are supposed to be non partisan and they almost always are except in the case of 204 in some peoples eyes who didn't get what they wanted. If we go by your "three for each boundary for a total of 9" suggestion then we would split the district three ways. Following that logic we might as well have three seperate districts.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 10, 2008 17:26:30 GMT -5
Remember also there are 21 ES in #204. Just because one or two are unhappy does not mean the remaining 19 ES should jump though hoops to appease them. Most of the district while not happy about the way things happened are content with this SB and don't feel the need to stir the pot despite the claims of the few malcontents.
|
|