sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 5, 2008 9:32:44 GMT -5
I think KB sort of apologized when she and JS presented the boundaries. She said they tried their best, it's not perfect, etc. etc. There is no way to be perfect - it's always a trade off - some area will always be unhappy. Sorry it's yours, Doc.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 5, 2008 9:37:19 GMT -5
arch, and others, do you really believe that the NSFOC organizers believed the district had done something illegal? Or did they file a lawsuit because they were unhappy with the things the district had done and hoped that they could find some legal grounds to change the path? I'm not sure the courts are the proper place to argue when one feels their voice has not been heard. It is too bad that the district has to eat the cost of this lawsuit as well but I expect that the actual cost per household is likely fairly low.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 9:56:39 GMT -5
arch, and others, do you really believe that the NSFOC organizers believed the district had done something illegal? Or did they file a lawsuit because they were unhappy with the things the district had done and hoped that they could find some legal grounds to change the path? I'm not sure the courts are the proper place to argue when one feels their voice has not been heard. It is too bad that the district has to eat the cost of this lawsuit as well but I expect that the actual cost per household is likely fairly low. I got the read that they honestly felt that putting out information about a site, then securing money based on the campaign about that and only that site, then switching sites was illegal/unethical. I agreed that it seemed unethical, but Popejoy clearly shows it was not illegal. That answers that question. Again, this was just my personal read based on a face to face meeting with a handful. They seemed very genuine and focused on this core issue. Honestly, I can admire that because the ones I met with did not appear to be in a "give me anything and everything to throw against the wall to see what sticks" mindset. I don't know where they actually sat in the organization but I was impressed with their professionalism, candor and even more impressed because they did not have nor show any bit of the "stick it back to the school board" in them; which I was honestly pleasantly surprised to not see. I certainly don't doubt that some may have that mindset just as some out there have the mindset of 'stick it to TG/WE any and every chance I can'.. but those were not the people I met. The 'take away' from that which we need to apply going forward is to be more open and honest as a district with the public on any future vote. Don't act like things are a slam-dunk and they won't or can't go another way. I can empathize with their position and they took the path they felt they needed to in order to get that very core issue and question answered... Did the board act legally or not with respect to the money raised to build the school and was it legally tied to a specific piece of property based on the informational blitz by the district that used taxpayer dollars to do it...? It's been answered. It's done.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 5, 2008 10:04:43 GMT -5
arch, and others, do you really believe that the NSFOC organizers believed the district had done something illegal? Or did they file a lawsuit because they were unhappy with the things the district had done and hoped that they could find some legal grounds to change the path? I'm not sure the courts are the proper place to argue when one feels their voice has not been heard. It is too bad that the district has to eat the cost of this lawsuit as well but I expect that the actual cost per household is likely fairly low. I got the read that they honestly felt that putting out information about a site, then securing money based on the campaign about that and only that site, then switching sites was illegal/unethical. I agreed that it seemed unethical, but Popejoy clearly shows it was not illegal. That answers that question. Again, this was just my personal read based on a face to face meeting with a handful. They seemed very genuine and focused on this core issue. Honestly, I can admire that because the ones I met with did not appear to be in a "give me anything and everything to throw against the wall to see what sticks" mindset. I don't know where they actually sat in the organization but I was impressed with their professionalism, candor and even more impressed because they did not have nor show any bit of the "stick it back to the school board" in them; which I was honestly pleasantly surprised to not see. I certainly don't doubt that some may have that mindset just as some out there have the mindset of 'stick it to TG/WE any and every chance I can'.. but those were not the people I met. The 'take away' from that which we need to apply going forward is to be more open and honest as a district with the public on any future vote. Don't act like things are a slam-dunk and they won't or can't go another way. I can empathize with their position and they took the path they felt they needed to in order to get that very core issue and question answered... Did the board act legally or not with respect to the money raised to build the school and was it legally tied to a specific piece of property based on the informational blitz by the district that used taxpayer dollars to do it...? It's been answered. It's done. Thanks, arch. This is not at all the impression I've had from reading the website, the news, the blogs, the boards, etc. so I'm glad to have this additional viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 5, 2008 10:04:45 GMT -5
I think KB sort of apologized when she and JS presented the boundaries. She said they tried their best, it's not perfect, etc. etc. There is no way to be perfect - it's always a trade off - some area will always be unhappy. Sorry it's yours, Doc. Thanks for the acknowledgement, I have never had a single concern with Kathy Birkett. To this day I believe she should have been our next Super. She has always been nothing short of perfectly honest and straightforward. I have known her and of her for some time now, and this has always been the case. She is one of the few who still communicates pleasantly with me, and I truly believe she would agree we are not in a good situation. She gave the me the bus times to my part of Watts...there hasn't been spin from her. I just wish something could address the issue for those here. I do not believe that sending any ES ( not just Watts ) to the furthest HS from their home is wrong - especially when we add 30% capacity to the HS system, and make the longest commute situation no better or worse than today. The people who had it before - BD and Ginger Woods etc know what a pitn it is - not fixing that while spending what we did was just unacceptable to me. Not looking for perfection, but this seems to be more than a minor flaw. Oh well, I will seriously try and get off the boundary/commute horse on green - as time moves forward, but please understand the graduation- now leaving 204 wound is a little fresh right now. sorry for repetition.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 10:25:55 GMT -5
Thanks, arch. This is not at all the impression I've had from reading the website, the news, the blogs, the boards, etc. so I'm glad to have this additional viewpoint. Keep in mind that the group was a formation of many people with different points of view that banded together under an umbrella name. If one accused the people here of being the ones in the blogs hurling the racist/elitist comments and the Nanny Nanny BooBoo behavior at TG/WE, I would hope they would be incorrect and that it was simply others in the community showing their immaturity even though they looked like they and you were on the 'same side'. I never got the impression that there was any sort of corporate structure to nsfoc. Many people and groups each bringing in their own ideas and grievances and ways of doing things. That can lend itself to personal agendas cropping up as can happen with any diversely formed group.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 10:38:56 GMT -5
Thanks, arch. This is not at all the impression I've had from reading the website, the news, the blogs, the boards, etc. so I'm glad to have this additional viewpoint. Keep in mind that the group was a formation of many people with different points of view that banded together under an umbrella name. If one accused the people here of being the ones in the blogs hurling the racist/elitist comments and the Nanny Nanny BooBoo behavior at TG/WE, I would hope they would be incorrect and that it was simply others in the community showing their immaturity even though they looked like they and you were on the 'same side'. I never got the impression that there was any sort of corporate structure to nsfoc. Many people and groups each bringing in their own ideas and grievances and ways of doing things. That can lend itself to personal agendas cropping up as can happen with any diversely formed group. You have to remember arch that despite the intentions of the group, some people found the lawsuit and the potential repercussions, i.e. Metea not opening in either 2009 or even at all, pretty reprehensible. I attended several NSFOC meetings. At the last one, I did have an opportunity to speak to some of the members. Very engaging people but I disagreed with their actions wholeheartedly. On the other hand, they did what was within their legal rights by filing a lawsuit. I am pleased it did not stop the progress of Metea.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 11:09:24 GMT -5
Keep in mind that the group was a formation of many people with different points of view that banded together under an umbrella name. If one accused the people here of being the ones in the blogs hurling the racist/elitist comments and the Nanny Nanny BooBoo behavior at TG/WE, I would hope they would be incorrect and that it was simply others in the community showing their immaturity even though they looked like they and you were on the 'same side'. I never got the impression that there was any sort of corporate structure to nsfoc. Many people and groups each bringing in their own ideas and grievances and ways of doing things. That can lend itself to personal agendas cropping up as can happen with any diversely formed group. You have to remember arch that despite the intentions of the group, some people found the lawsuit and the potential repercussions, i.e. Metea not opening in either 2009 or even at all, pretty reprehensible. Everyone is free to form their own opinions. What they in turn do based on those feelings is entirely up to them to govern their own behavior. You attended more than I did (0) so I never got a read on a room full of people. I disagreed with the path they chose to make their stand on because I thought it had the least likely probability of victory, but it was their choice and I wasn't in the group to say how it should have gone. This is why I believe it was more based on principle than 'sticking it to the district'. This is why I keep saying, it's done and everyone needs to put the swords and shields down on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 11:23:45 GMT -5
Having met folks from both extremes, I couldn't agree with you more. Now if we could just get people to realize that not all of us who have supported the district in the bid to build Metea on Eola fit into the same "SB apologist" blanket or whatever one wishes to call us. Lots of blankets were thrown over lots of people and that is just plain wrong.
It is time for everyone to put away the anger and move on.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 5, 2008 11:24:12 GMT -5
I agree arch. It would be a good step in acknowledging that these people had a beef. I don't know if it would be good enough for some, as I think many people want some sort of press release with an apology from Dr. D and MM on the 10:00 news, but IMO it still shows that the district doesn't have a vendetta against "certain areas" as so many believe. It would be a good step on the district's part to mend the rift. I can only speak for me, - I do not want a press release but would like some kind of acknowledgement that people in some areas have legit concerns. Ignoring those concerns, or pointing fingers at those areas as different kinds of problems is not the answer IMHO. I don't think that's too much to ask from people these areas helped elect..( in SB member case), and helped pass the school ref along with other areas. Meet with the PTSA leadership in those areas and their members and listen to what they have to say. Some will view it as special treatment, but some members met with areas that had concerns the first time thru - and provided guideance to those groups. Somewhere between hand holding and 'sit down and shut up' I believe lies the steps to trying to repair the rifts. True some will never be happy, but those are not the majority of people with concerns. Do you believe that is excessive - or that that should not occur ? I will take M2's comment about ending the backfighting and acrimonious stuff to stop the way it was explained here as a positive first step - taking action to help that is the follow thru. I believe the end result would be worth the effort. Doc, I see this as a legitimate concern of yours as well as others on the blue board. And I myself spoke with a board member who knew this was not going to be pleasant for some areas. They really did not want to intentionally screw anyone--it's just the way it worked out as change doesn't make everyone happy. I see your point about sitting down with these communities. Again, I wish the SB would bring back those coffees...maybe they would be better attended. Or your idea is better yet, in that if they don't want a public forum, at least address issues with the PTA's from the affected schools. Sort of reminds me of when d203 sat down with the Mill St. folks to see how the ref would affect Mill St. school. I myself hope Mr. PR guy earns his weight and really brings back communication w/in this district as soon as the lawsuits are over and we return to normal. I'm sure we are not the first district with a super that doesn't relate well to the parents, but it would be nice to have a liason somewhere so we don't feel so frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 11:27:31 GMT -5
An even better step would be, for example, to explain why they can not move ES's closer to MV to MV and need to instead send several areas to the farthest HS from them.
If it's about transportation costs, then show it without the fudged 'averages'. Show the raw data. If it's about balancing socio-economics then say it. If it's to shuffle around each school enough to meet the criteria of 'complete restructure' for NCLB, then say so. If it's any other reason(s), then say what they actually are so people can at least understand the thinking and methodology.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 5, 2008 11:55:38 GMT -5
Having met folks from both extremes, I couldn't agree with you more. Now if we could just get people to realize that not all of us who have supported the district in the bid to build Metea on Eola fit into the same "SB apologist" blanket or whatever one wishes to call us. Lots of blankets were thrown over lots of people and that is just plain wrong. It is time for everyone to put away the anger and move on. I agree the blankets need to be put away, however let's acknowlege the fact that most people either already moved on, or more easily doing so, have something they like in the new deal. For you it is going to Waubonsie which you wanted - the downside is they split your ES....not good, I agree. However you did get the HS and commute from home that works. A few areas got basically everything they wanted - and are the most vocal - local ES - local MS - now local HS - a new HS that many wanted there -- it is very easy to push hard for moving on - the future is all they wanted. Like a lottery win. For other areas with not so good MS commutes - and now really bad HS commutes this process is just not going to fall in place as easily. That doesn't make us all blanket SB-SD haters and bad people. And yes there are truly some who will make the most of anything - my hats off to them, I have said it before, they are obviosuly better people than me.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 5, 2008 12:04:28 GMT -5
Yep, it all comes down to "what's in it for me" doesn't it. I am trying Dr. Who but you know as well as anyone who posted on blue way back when that I as well as most if not all of the Gombert posters would have accepted ANY of the 3 schools and even contacted SB members and the district regarding that.
Please don't tell me it is easier for me to move on because I got what I wanted. You so need to stop throwing stuff at people. I had already accepted Metea at BB even though I had no desire for my daughter to go there. Some of us just handle this differently.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 5, 2008 12:08:50 GMT -5
Yep, it all comes down to "what's in it for me" doesn't it. I am trying Dr. Who but you know as well as anyone who posted on blue way back when that I as well as most if not all of the Gombert posters would have accepted ANY of the 3 schools and even contacted SB members and the district regarding that. Please don't tell me it is easier for me to move on because I got what I wanted. You so need to stop throwing stuff at people. I had already accepted Metea at BB even though I had no desire for my daughter to go there. Some of us just handle this differently. I do remember some from back then who didn't want their kids going to 'that' school with 'those' kids... where 'that' school was NV.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 5, 2008 12:10:01 GMT -5
An even better step would be, for example, to explain why they can not move ES's closer to MV to MV and need to instead send several areas to the farthest HS from them. I agree with this in principle. And my "best I could do" boundary idea employed this very principle w/ parts of Steck and Mccarty going to MV. But in practice I'll explain why this was very hard to do (and I looked long and hard at this): It is difficult to draw the boundary line without splitting up neighborhoods. You have to understand that. If not, just drive around there a bit and tell me...where do you draw the line?? Tough call! I agree that splitting ES's is not ideal but also not the end of the world. But having an arbitrary line going through a neighborhood.....that should absolutely be avoided in my opinion. That makes me very uncomfortable. I wouldnt want that to happen in my neighborhood. For example, drawing the line at Steck and Mccarty walkers to WV, with the rest going to MV is pretty unsatisfying because doing so truly was drawing a line through what I call neighborhoods (I believe the people living there would agree). Even drawing the line at say Mccoy road is unsatisfying. There are single family homes on both the Mcc and Steck area N and S sides of Mccoy. (edit: Mcc area N of mccoy maybe townhomes. no sure). To me no matter which side of Mccoy you are on...its all part of the same neighborhood. (kind of academic looking at mccoy as boundary...not enough enrollement to allow another full ES, such as Watts or the Owen W/Gombert E one ES equivalent to leave MV) On the other hand, its also unsatisfying to have Owen W and Gombert E instead go to MV because of the increased distance....but having that geographic neighborhood going to the same HS without an arbitrary line through it is a good thing in terms of neighborhood cohesion. Whatever complaints we have about boundaries (and I dont like them, really), we have to admit they do a good job of keeping neighborhoods intact. For example, the Gombert and Owen ES splits do indeed keep their neighborhoods at same school with clear geographical boundaries. I think the same pretty much holds true for Peterson ES split....I understand that its mostly the newer Ashwood Park area that is going to WV (somebody from down that way could speak better on this). Its about what do you chose to absolutely optimize....I cannot fault the SB and admin in their final boundary choice if they but a priority on keeping geographic neighborhoods intact. From the big picture standpoint, this probably was a good, longterm choice.
|
|