|
Post by JWH on Sept 11, 2008 7:23:49 GMT -5
quote] Do you deny all 3 incumbents ran on a platform of no changes to site - boundaries ? Not at all. In fact, I bet an overwhelming amount of the votes for them would be to ensure there were no changes to the original BB boundaries.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 11, 2008 7:25:21 GMT -5
No, I am saying that a desirable (and usually mandated) characteristic of government or quasi-governmental entities is that most or all of the constituent areas are represented.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Sept 11, 2008 7:31:13 GMT -5
Doc, I didn't twist anything you said. Just commented on your post and was trying to figure it out, as it really didn't make sense as I read it. Why would we have to have another vote for something that we trust our elected officials to handle, regardless of change of circumstances or not.
Maybe I will answer your posts with "Whatever you say, Doc". Will that make you feel better? You don't seem to want to discuss anything here, but only want people to agree with you.
-------------------
Congratulations to Cathy Piehl. I think she'll be fair and will do her best to better this district. She brings a lot of experiece and knowledge to the table.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 11, 2008 7:32:56 GMT -5
No, I am saying that a desirable (and usually mandated) characteristic of government or quasi-governmental entities is that most or all of the constituent areas are represented. So we have 7 members. You divide them up how? By income? By geography? I think that BG represented the SW and he did what was best for the entire district. It makes sense for WE and TG to go to WV. But because some people didn't like the outcome, they are complaining he didn't represent them. No matter how one is elected, if people don't like their choices, they will say that the member is not listening to them. AGain, can't please everyone.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 11, 2008 7:42:35 GMT -5
Geography.
You didn't directly attribute this sentiment to me, but I will clarify that is not my feeling and doesn't have anything to do with my thoughts on the "no representation" issue.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Sept 11, 2008 7:54:45 GMT -5
Last time I voted geography for a SB member, I was very disappointed. I voted for CV because she was from McC. CV has acted on her beliefs and in what she believes is the interest of the entire district. If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted for her. She has done her job as a SB member, representing all the students, I just don't agree with her views. Asmodeus, other than new schools and boundaries, what area of SB business requires geographic representation?
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 11, 2008 8:07:27 GMT -5
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 - My mistake then, I misunderstood what was implied by your post. I still believe that "no changes" was the best route for the district to go if it had been possible, and still would have chosen the candidates who did not want to change the site and boundaries. I can't imagine that considering how the site change has affected you, that you would prefer we had elected people who wanted to change the site and boundaries either.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Sept 11, 2008 8:40:35 GMT -5
No, I am saying that a desirable (and usually mandated) characteristic of government or quasi-governmental entities is that most or all of the constituent areas are represented. In cases where the different areas have differing interests, yes. But in the case of a school district the interests should be the same across the board.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 11, 2008 8:44:34 GMT -5
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 - My mistake then, I misunderstood what was implied by your post. I still believe that "no changes" was the best route for the district to go if it had been possible, and still would have chosen the candidates who did not want to change the site and boundaries. I can't imagine that considering how the site change has affected you, that you would prefer we had elected people who wanted to change the site and boundaries either. Again though, not what I am saying. The point made by major was that since our current members were re elected - they had to be popular enough where most people wanted them back in. I am saying that many people voted on 'platform' - not necessarily individual. I know some people who had a real hard time x ing the box for one in particular - but the 3 represented no more changes ( at the time ). People were tired and voted for that as opposed to potential for more changes/battles. As for me I didn't say I would have voted for change- Iinfact that's my point exactly- I didn't want any more changes - it had been a long haul already. However as it worked out I ended up with drastic changes anyway didn't I ? And I never got to vote on that one way or another. on that - it was decided for me. The time I did get a chance to vote I voted No changes.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Sept 11, 2008 8:51:36 GMT -5
Doc, I didn't twist anything you said. Just commented on your post and was trying to figure it out, as it really didn't make sense as I read it. Why would we have to have another vote for something that we trust our elected officials to handle, regardless of change of circumstances or not. Maybe I will answer your posts with "Whatever you say, Doc". Will that make you feel better? You don't seem to want to discuss anything here, but only want people to agree with you. ------------------- Congratulations to Cathy Piehl. I think she'll be fair and will do her best to better this district. She brings a lot of experiece and knowledge to the table. I am more than willing to discuss - but what I said, not what you may want to portray as what I said. why would we have another vote ? How about a chance to vote on exactly where $150M would be spent - since it was drastically different than what was sold and promised ? Call me crazy, but since we had 2 votes before on the referendum as to what the Sd was going to do - when everything basically changes - ( including brutal population projections) - seemed appropriate to ask the people again, is this hwere you want your money spent ? You can't deny huge swings in feeling on the issues across the district. And before you cite it - yes I can read and read the ballot language - but I also can hear and know what ws said to the voters - but we've been down this path before and I am sure I will hear about it
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 11, 2008 9:02:28 GMT -5
Geography. You didn't directly attribute this sentiment to me, but I will clarify that is not my feeling and doesn't have anything to do with my thoughts on the "no representation" issue. No I was not implying you thought that way at all. I was talking generally. I understand what you are saying, asmodeus and to a certain degree, the human part of me agrees with you. We are currently asking human beings to put aside where they live and vote for the betterment of the district. Some will argue that did not occur with the current board. Some will also argue that depending on who is elected in the spring, some members may still not have the entire district's interest at heart and are only looking out for their particular area. So I guess the best way to solve that would be to have 1 board member from each ES looking out only for his or her own ES and vote accordingly. Do other schools districts do this? I can't imagine having 21 board members, can you? I continue to stand by my statement that geography is only important in boundaries. So why not form a boundary committee with 1 rep from each ES and they would work with an entity/corporation that has experience in dividing districts up for boundaries. I don't think you have to change the whole makeup of the current school board to achieve a better way to do boundaries. I believe that the first go-around, the SB asked each ES for their input as I remember meeting as a PTA and voting on the boundary proposal. Unfortunately, that was not done this time around. But in my honest opinion, I believe that at least 11 ES's would have voted this current boundary proposal as OK. I think from the last go-around, the board had a good idea of what changes would make what ES happy. They again realized they can't make everyone happy. So they did what they thought was best.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 11, 2008 9:21:15 GMT -5
I am saying that many people voted on 'platform' - not necessarily individual. I know some people who had a real hard time x ing the box for one in particular - but the 3 represented no more changes ( at the time ).
People were tired and voted for that as opposed to potential for more changes/battles. I understand your characterizing that the candidate platform of "no changes" was voted in. I agree with you. But one huge element of "no changes" was to build a complete school with the already-voted-on referendum money. Circumstance from the jury trial caused change, one way or another. Either site (and or course boundaries) changed OR the scope of the school bldg (stadium/auditorium etc. ) and need for a future ref to complete changed. The SB used their judgement for which change was best for the entire district. I know, a lot of people are hyper-focused on boundaries. But there are plenty who understandibly focused on tax dollars spent. For fiscal responsibility, the SB did not want to force that form of change onto the district.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 11, 2008 10:32:54 GMT -5
As I mentioned before, there are viewpoints and biases that may be common to different areas that will come into play. The CPS is not a perfect comparison, but it obviously covers a huge area of differing groups. White collar and blue collar, different ethnic groups, different socioeconomic classes. It's easy to envision all of these demographics having different priorities. Some may be pro-union. Some may want more African American studies. Some may want bilingual education. Some may want more special needs programs. Some may want more music and fewer sports.
D204 is certainly more homogenous than CPS, but there are still differences. As an extreme example, does the owner of a million dollar house have different views on education than someone renting in Bolingbrook? Likely yes. That doesn't make either one right, but the way it should work is that someone from both groups should have a voice.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 11, 2008 10:42:41 GMT -5
What would have happened if the quick take happened as the SB wanted? Would we now be building on BB, crying about fiscal irresponsibility, or would the SB have had second thoughts and tried to walk away anyway? (I'm not even sure they could have walked away from a quick take.)
It would seem that the "fiscal responsibility" folks should not be thanking the SB but be thanking their lucky stars that BB fought the quick take.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Sept 11, 2008 11:00:56 GMT -5
As I mentioned before, there are viewpoints and biases that may be common to different areas that will come into play. The CPS is not a perfect comparison, but it obviously covers a huge area of differing groups. White collar and blue collar, different ethnic groups, different socioeconomic classes. It's easy to envision all of these demographics having different priorities. Some may be pro-union. Some may want more African American studies. Some may want bilingual education. Some may want more special needs programs. Some may want more music and fewer sports. D204 is certainly more homogenous than CPS, but there are still differences. As an extreme example, does the owner of a million dollar house have different views on education than someone renting in Bolingbrook? Likely yes. That doesn't make either one right, but the way it should work is that someone from both groups should have a voice. The statement highlighted is very curious. Care to expound on that? To be honest, the concerns you mention are not conveniently compartmentalized in this district. As well, I am trying to understand how it families of a special needs students or minority students in the north end of the district and special needs or minority students from the south end of the district would benefit from this type of representation. Our district is supposed to be meeting the educational needs of all students no matter where they live.
|
|