|
Post by gatormom on Sept 10, 2008 17:40:20 GMT -5
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. I know TG would love that. I really hate to see an entire subdivision targeted when only a handful of individuals made all that noise. I doubt that TG would love for us to be 3 districts.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 10, 2008 17:55:31 GMT -5
From what I can tell, there are no school board members living south of Montgomery and west of Plainfield-Naperville Roads. (Nor the superintendent.)
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 10, 2008 18:31:06 GMT -5
From what I can tell, there are no school board members living south of Montgomery and west of Plainfield-Naperville Roads. (Nor the superintendent.) IMO this seems to be an issue because boundaries are still an issue. Asmodeus, I haven't been to many meetings recently so I don't know. Can you site any other times where the board members failed to do a job based on where they live? Did the candidates that live in WV and NV areas not vote on the bids for MV? Is there some other area besides boundaries where you felt where they lived mattered in how they voted? To me, this always boils down to the same ol' thing. Boundaries. Maybe instead of trying to change the representation of the board, people should focus on a different way for the board to draw up boundaries. We are district 204, not the southwest part of Naperville or the northern part of Aurora. Perhaps the board should have hired a private firm to draw up boundaries. IMO this would have eliminated the north/south civil war we seem to still be fighting. But they didn't do that. I highly doubt the boundaries would have been much different, and I believe someone commented that some would still say the SB members bribed the people making the decisions so what does it matter anyway? We would still have a bunch of people not happy and looking to blame the SB. We need to bring people to the board that can look beyond where they live and do what's right for the district as a whole. AGain, it's just a matter of finding the right people to fill those spots in April.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 10, 2008 20:10:28 GMT -5
From what I can tell, there are no school board members living south of Montgomery and west of Plainfield-Naperville Roads. (Nor the superintendent.) So? Everyone with the exception of the newly appointed member have all been voted in. The people voted them in and thought enough of five members to return them to office.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Sept 10, 2008 20:30:55 GMT -5
I would also point out that the Superintendent bought his home when BB was considered a done deal. He purposely bought a home in the WV boundaries. He has 2 teenaged daughters who will both be WV grads. At the time he bought his home, I considered it a politically savvy move. Had he bought in the NV or MV (under BB) boundaries after all the criticism of WV a few years ago, he would have left himself open to the criticism that he found WV to be not good enough for his own children.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 10, 2008 21:19:20 GMT -5
From what I can tell, there are no school board members living south of Montgomery and west of Plainfield-Naperville Roads. (Nor the superintendent.) So? Everyone with the exception of the newly appointed member have all been voted in. The people voted them in and thought enough of five members to return them to office. you also might remember that part of the platform they ran on last election was not changing boundaries - everything status quo. In fact in some debates'/forums the 'risk' of changing this was all placed in contenders courts. I myself had that discussion with one of the runners up at a forum. If they would have run on a platform that said move the site - and let's draw new boundaries the outcome 'may' have been different. This is not saying the 3 were not qualified - but the circumstances were quite different. Even non-malcontents remember that. Timing is everything in some cases
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 10, 2008 21:24:59 GMT -5
you also might remember that part of the platform they ran on last election was not changing boundaries - everything status quo. In fact in some debates'/forums the 'risk' of changing this was all placed in contenders courts. I myself had that discussion with one of the runners up at a forum. If they would have run on a platform that said move the site - and let's draw new boundaries the outcome 'may' have been different. This is not saying the 3 were not qualified - but the circumstances were quite different. Even non-malcontents remember that. What do you suggest should have been done once the site was no longer feasible? New site with same boundaries? I don't think so. How was the jury decision within the control of our school board? Had the site not needed to change, the boundaries would have remained the same. But it seems like we've talked about this before.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 10, 2008 21:35:16 GMT -5
Right...when they were running BB was still the site de jour........it was not till way after the election that the jury came back with it's verdict.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 10, 2008 23:11:13 GMT -5
Right...when they were running BB was still the site de jour........it was not till way after the election that the jury came back with it's verdict. understood - but to borrow from this years election - they were NOT the harbingers of change- they were the poster children for status quo. I am willing to go out on a limb and say many votes were from people who did not want the district to undergo any more of what it had in the previous boundary meetings - which was a risk with others ( real or imagined ) -even if BB would have remained the site. Would you not agree ? No one got to vote on anything related to the changes.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Sept 10, 2008 23:45:31 GMT -5
Right...when they were running BB was still the site de jour........it was not till way after the election that the jury came back with it's verdict. understood - but to borrow from this years election - they were NOT the harbingers of change- they were the poster children for status quo. I am willing to go out on a limb and say many votes were from people who did not want the district to undergo any more of what it had in the previous boundary meetings - which was a risk with others ( real or imagined ) -even if BB would have remained the site. Would you not agree ? No one got to vote on anything related to the changes. But so many things were no longer status quo. The jury verdict threw everyone for a loop. Thus, things changed. And the SB felt they had to change course as well. As previously posted, would you want the boundaries to remain the same even though the site changed? I think not. And as for voting for things related to the changes - this is why we elect a SB. To decide these things that come up. We can't put every change to a resident vote. This is why we have elected officials. We trust them to make these often critical decisions, whether it's a SB or city council or Senate. If you don't like their decision, then vote someone else in. But we'll all still be trusting that individual or group to make those decisions when they come up.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 11, 2008 4:52:00 GMT -5
Not at all. Let me give you an example of something other than boundaries.
I can't speak for everyone in "the south," but many of us are of the opinion that teachers' unions are too powerful. We don't want our SB to cave to the strike threats that other districts usually succumb to. Does everyone in the district feel this way? I doubt it.
I'm not sure how the CPS board is configured, but I would have a hard time believing people would accept its members being predominantly from the inner city, or all from the Gold Coast.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 11, 2008 4:57:42 GMT -5
Many people, including those on the SB, knew a high jury verdict was a distinct possibility. Our SB chose to escrow $600k per acre for a quick take proceeding -- what other proof is necessary?
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 11, 2008 7:11:03 GMT -5
you also might remember that part of the platform they ran on last election was not changing boundaries - everything status quo. In fact in some debates'/forums the 'risk' of changing this was all placed in contenders courts. I myself had that discussion with one of the runners up at a forum. If they would have run on a platform that said move the site - and let's draw new boundaries the outcome 'may' have been different. This is not saying the 3 were not qualified - but the circumstances were quite different. Even non-malcontents remember that. What do you suggest should have been done once the site was no longer feasible? New site with same boundaries? I don't think so. How was the jury decision within the control of our school board? Had the site not needed to change, the boundaries would have remained the same. But it seems like we've talked about this before. Please read my post - that ws NOT the point - majoranthrax is claimin in his post that the SB officials were all re elected because the people overwhelmingly approved. I am saying that the message was voted back in yes- but the message was different than what reality came out of it. Nowhere did I say that they could have kept the same boundaries -- so please do not twist what I said -- I didn't say they controlled the court decision either... show me where in my post I did.. I simply stated they ran on a platform of no change- stability - where the others represented potentially ( and this was highlighted during the process )- changes to boundaries or site. I didn't think what I wrote was confusing - but there seems to be strawmen being built on things NOT in my post. Do you deny all 3 incumbents ran on a platform of no changes to site - boundaries ? Do you deny that the challengers represented possible changes to one or both ? Do you deny that most people were worn out after the last round and did not want any more changes at that time ? That's all I said - please re read and show me where I said what you are telling me I said -
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 11, 2008 7:13:15 GMT -5
Not at all. Let me give you an example of something other than boundaries. I can't speak for everyone in "the south," but many of us are of the opinion that teachers' unions are too powerful. We don't want our SB to cave to the strike threats that other districts usually succumb to. Does everyone in the district feel this way? I doubt it. I'm not sure how the CPS board is configured, but I would have a hard time believing people would accept its members being predominantly from the inner city, or all from the Gold Coast. You are basically saying that no one can put on a neutral hat and judge what is best for the schools. They may lose their neutrality because of their income or because of where they live. Your teacher's strike is just another example of the broad range of things that each board member must do. They don't just do boundaries or teacher's strikes. They have to wear many hats, including accounting, law, business, even construction knowledge might be helpful etc. So should we sacifice the best people out there just so we can have a broad spectrum of income, location etc.? I think the problem lies in whether you have someone that can truly put on the neutral hat. I don't think that many of the current four up for re-election will run again except maybe CV and hopefully Cathy Piehl. So we get to choose 2 more candidates that are fresh and evaluate the other two to see if they exhibited their neutral hats. In truth, I don't think JC exhibited a neutral hat at the first boundary war. But I do think most of the board members have the entire district's interest at heart. I think CP will hopefully look to improve communication within the entire district and I will be looking for more of these members come April.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 11, 2008 7:13:36 GMT -5
understood - but to borrow from this years election - they were NOT the harbingers of change- they were the poster children for status quo. I am willing to go out on a limb and say many votes were from people who did not want the district to undergo any more of what it had in the previous boundary meetings - which was a risk with others ( real or imagined ) -even if BB would have remained the site. Would you not agree ? No one got to vote on anything related to the changes. But so many things were no longer status quo. The jury verdict threw everyone for a loop. Thus, things changed. And the SB felt they had to change course as well. As previously posted, would you want the boundaries to remain the same even though the site changed? I think not. And as for voting for things related to the changes - this is why we elect a SB. To decide these things that come up. We can't put every change to a resident vote. This is why we have elected officials. We trust them to make these often critical decisions, whether it's a SB or city council or Senate. If you don't like their decision, then vote someone else in. But we'll all still be trusting that individual or group to make those decisions when they come up. please read my last response - you always accuse me of twisting things - what you are bringing up is NOT what I said. POINT IN TIME - the 3 incumbents ran on NO CHANGE and stability - period. That influenced who voted for them and who did not. No one said that things didn't change - but the election vote was based on what was known then - and their stance influenced who voted for them and why. Now as I DID say earlier - no one ever got to vote on the changes or after the changes.. that's still true
|
|