|
Post by momto4 on Oct 20, 2008 11:42:59 GMT -5
Nominating petition forms for the April 7, 2009 school board election will soon be available to community members interested in running for the school board. Forms may be picked up from the Superintendent's office at the Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora, beginning October 21, between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm. A school board candidate's petition must be filed in the same office no earlier than 8:00 am on Tuesday, January 20 and no later than 5:00 pm on Monday, January 26. Candidates' names will appear on the election ballot in the order in which their nominating papers are received. Four seats on the seven-member board of education will be filled at the April 7 election. Candidates will serve four-year terms expiring in April 2013. To be eligible to serve, a school board member must be, on the date of the election, a citizen of the U.S., at least 18 years old, a registered voter, and a resident of the district for at least one year immediately preceding the election. For more information, contact Janel Buchner, board secretary, at mailto:janel_buchner@ipsd.org. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- School District 204 www.ipsd.org780 Shoreline Drive Aurora, IL 60504 USA
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Oct 28, 2008 5:21:52 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1245402,6_1_NA28_SKULBRDS_S1.article Election packets available for park, school boardsOctober 28, 2008 By TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com The Nov. 4 general election hasn't even been put to bed, and already local school and park boards are preparing for their April 7 elections. Residents interested in running for election to those boards can pick up packets and begin circulating petitions to have their names placed on the ballot today. Park District Packets for residents interested in seeking election to the Naperville Park District board are available from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday at the Park District's Administration Building, 320 W. Jackson Ave. Newly elected commissioners will serve four-year terms. Five positions on the seven-member park board will be up for election. Incumbents Suzanne Hart, Gerry Heide and Andrew Schaffner have announced that they will seek re-election to their posts, but commissioners Kristen Jungles and Mary Wright have decided not to run again. For more information, contact Jacki Stern at 630-848-3502. District 203 Residents interested in seeking election to the Naperville School District 203 board can pick up packets from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday in the office of board Secretary Ann Bell at the District 203 Administrative Center, 203 W. Hillside Road. District 203 board members also serve four-year terms. Four seats are up for grabs on District 203's seven-member board. Incumbents Dean Reschke and Debbie Shipley have announced they are not seeking re-election to their posts, but board Vice President Susan Crotty and member Jackie Romberg have said they intend to run in April. For more information, contact Anne Bell at 630-420-6311 or abell@naperville203.org. District 204 Forms for election to the Indian Prairie School District 204 board may be picked up between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday in the superintendent's office at the Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive. District 204 board members serve four-year terms. Four seats on the seven-member board will be filled in the election. While board Vice President John Stephens and member Christine Vickers and Cathy Piehl have indicated they intend to run in April, board member Jeanette Clark said she has yet to decide whether she will seek election for her fifth term on the board.
For more information, contact Janel Buchner, board secretary, at janel_buchner@ipsd.org.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Oct 28, 2008 8:33:30 GMT -5
I am surprised Stephans is running again as all indications were that he wouldn't. I am also surprised Clark is still open to another term. It should make things very interesting this election.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Oct 28, 2008 12:18:31 GMT -5
I agree - I had heard Stephens was probably not running again and Clark was definitely not running - didn't she even publicly state that?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Oct 28, 2008 13:24:28 GMT -5
I questioned whether Stephens would run again a few months ago when some speculation started and was told by a very reliable source that he would be running again.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Oct 28, 2008 16:24:23 GMT -5
I can't imagine Stephens winning this time around. True he saved his own area, (Owen East) but made alot of enemies. I have no idea other then Brighton Ridge where he would get support from.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Oct 28, 2008 16:45:45 GMT -5
I can't imagine Stephens winning this time around. True he saved his own area, (Owen East) but made alot of enemies. I have no idea other then Brighton Ridge where he would get support from. Who can or can't win this election depends an awful lot on who else is running.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Oct 28, 2008 20:45:36 GMT -5
I can't imagine Stephens winning this time around. True he saved his own area, (Owen East) but made alot of enemies. I have no idea other then Brighton Ridge where he would get support from. I wouldn't agree that he made "enemies". I'm from Owen West and yet I'd still support him over some other candidates, especially if some of them are from the same pool that submitted their names for the open board position. Overall, I think he's done a good job and has questioned several things that have been brought before the board. I'd have to see all the names of those who would run and find out what their platform is. There are some I wouldn't trust to be in a SB position.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Oct 28, 2008 21:04:53 GMT -5
I can't imagine Stephens winning this time around. True he saved his own area, (Owen East) but made alot of enemies. I have no idea other then Brighton Ridge where he would get support from. I was never very impressed with John Stephens - he was our PTA SB rep once, so he came to a few of our meetings. He seems to be one of the least effective members on the board, but I agree with momto4, whether or not I vote for him this time around is completely dependent on who else is running. FWIW - He didn't "save" his own area. He's only one vote. Owen East going that far north was ridiculous to begin with. That was a wrong made right.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Oct 29, 2008 9:35:15 GMT -5
FWIW - He didn't "save" his own area. He's only one vote. Owen East going that far north was ridiculous to begin with. That was a wrong made right. I agree, justvote. I dont think JS should be criticized for this boundary tweak. Nor should the majority who voted for this (was it a unanimous vote? I am pretty sure it was, correct me if I am wrong.) What is so outrageous and wrong with Owen East/Brighton Ridge being assigned to WV? It better satisfied the criteria, I believe. It recognizes geography. It balances enrollment population better btw MV and WV. And Still already was a split MS. Are people suggesting it would have been better to have Owen E remain assigned to MV? I dont agree with that. Yes, Owen E was the area picked to stay at WV, and not be reassigned to MV. This is a realatively small area (its about 1/3 of Owen ES population) and there was capacity available at WV. Unfortunately, Owen W+Gombert E (combines for about 1 ES worth of students) was too big to sensibly fit in WV. And the same holds for both Cowlishaw or Watts. Further, they didnt want to complicate the Cowl and Watts MS assignment and unnecessarily make Hill a split MS. Again, I dont think this is a decision that JS should be criticized for.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Oct 29, 2008 11:53:27 GMT -5
Perhaps I shouldn't have brought up the Owen, Brighton Ridge thing. I agree with justvote in that Stephens seems to be not very effective. That is where I was coming from. I also agree with eb. There are a few names that put their hat in for the BG opening that I wouldn't trusteither.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Oct 29, 2008 15:34:45 GMT -5
For what it's worth, it is my understanding that the Owen East folks approached Stephens about this without the knowledge of the Owen West folks. So I don't think it was Stephens looking out for his own area, but his own area looking out for themselves. Not that I blame them. I'm only saying that these people took it upon themselves to go to him with their cause instead of griping about it in a public format at the boundary meetings. Some go so far as to call it a "silent deal", but IMHO, they took their case to him in a rational way and he listened and took it back to the board. He could have easily been outvoted. IMHO, the board made a good decision for that area.
|
|