Park Board Candidate Q&As - 12 page pdf.

Eight candidates are running for four positions. Of these, four new candidates, Melissa Creech, Jay Kinzler, Julia Nephew, and Jeff Dickson, and three incumbents, Keith Schoen, Bill Taylor and Jeff Jourdan, responded by the deadline of Wednesday, March 4. One incumbent candidate, Ron Aubrey, did not take part.

I do not know Mr. Aubrey, but I wonder why he did not participate in this survey, nor did he participate in the vote on Ackerman woods.

Save Ackerman Woods

----
The Park District voted June 3, 2008 to NOT put soccer fields at Ackerman Woods. The vote was 4-1 with Bill Taylor, Keith Schoen, Bill Dallman and Sandy Minogue for, Jeff Jourdan voting against, Ed Hess absent. Ron Aubrey was present in the building but did not attend the meeting.
----

We posted an open letter to the Glen Ellyn Park District to pose questions regarding clarifications about the current Ackerman Park Fieldhouse project and priorities as expressed in the 2005 resident survey.

Read our letter which drew an immediate response from GEPD candidate Melissa Creech with her set of facts.

We anticipate the GEPD will respond next week in time for readers to learn their perspective on the facts.

Read more at GlenEllynLife.com

Newspaper coverage of the Park Board election: The Tribune did a better job in its TribLocal pullout (March 26-April 1) than the County's Daily Herald did. Tribune publishes a brief statement from each candidate. Herald does endorsements, and endorsed Melissa Creech without noticing that she's running as part of a team with Kinzler & Nephew, and it matters. The Glen Ellyn Sun, delivered free on Fridays, has an account of the League of Women Voters forum last Sunday, though it's too brief to be very clear. The News, delivered free on Wednesdays, is the paper that included the official Consolidated Election Notice.

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:
There's no confusion.

The referendum was disingenuous, at best and Melissa seems to have pointed that out quite well. The community had no need and no desire for a 100,000ft2 field house. The community did however have an overwhelming desire to renovate Main Street Rec and voted on the package deal to ensure that the latter issue passed.

The open letter and Ms. Creech's reply well explain my reasons for voting against any and all PD incumbents. I believe we have had our share of dubious referenda and public projects in this town, but this one takes the cake. I LOVE the question regarding steps that have (not) been taken with respect to the community's expressed priorities!

Having said this, I know several folk who think the building at Ackerman is a phenomenal idea, and who strongly support the incumbents as visionaries. I guess I just differ from these folk in terms of priorities. However, I must respect these peoples' ability to get their agenda accomplished.

quote:

Originally posted by Dinsdale:

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:
There's no confusion.

The referendum was disingenuous, at best and Melissa seems to have pointed that out quite well. The community had no need and no desire for a 100,000ft2 field house. The community did however have an overwhelming desire to renovate Main Street Rec and voted on the package deal to ensure that the latter issue passed.

The open letter and Ms. Creech's reply well explain my reasons for voting against any and all PD incumbents.

I must agree and disagree. I do think that the referendum vote, and lead up, left a little to the imagination that the priority focus would be on fieldhouse construction. Yet, Ms Creech's own reply indicates that this information was in the records of the meetings. Why didn't she campaign as hard for the failure of the referendum as she did for a small patch of trees? Also, the desire to renovate MSRC from the public was disingenuous at best. This renovation and preservation of the original structure left no room for expansion to provide the additional gym space necessary for growing programs and usage. Remember, the PD utilizes many if not all the D41 gym spaces throughout the week. This has been a bur in D41 britches since the deal was struck. Do you think D41 will allow this to continue, when their program usage expands and the community cries foul?

I can't speak to any future plans, nor will I say that the fieldhouse, especially in its current location, is the best proposal, but I do recognize the need for gym space for programs. You can't have a clean up day and make that materialize.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I must agree and disagree. I do think that the referendum vote, and lead up, left a little to the imagination that the priority focus would be on fieldhouse construction. Yet, Ms Creech's own reply indicates that this information was in the records of the meetings.

Yeah, the info was there for folks who loked hard enough. But put in context, I suggest it was less disclosure than I desire from my public bodies.
-2005 survey - indoor soccer placed last.
-Unsuccessful 3/06 referendum seeking $12.5 mill - no mention of fieldhouse.
-At some point between 3/06 and 11/06 referendum, the main thrust becomes construction of the fieldhouse - $7 mill out of the requested $11 mill.
-The PD's published material boldly proclaims "You spoke, We Listened." Who the heck spoke when in support of a new fieldhouse?
-The 11/06 referendum passes, following the time honored technique of initially asking an outrageous amount and following up requesting a slightly less outrageous amount, coupled with the "Your taxes will not increase" mantra.

I don't know about you, but that pattern of disingenuousness impresses me as pretty much having the same effect as outright lying.

quote:

Why didn't she campaign as hard for the failure of the referendum as she did for a small patch of trees?

Seems to me that the Ackerman Woods issue arose after the '06 referendum, no? Maybe it was the final straw for Ms. Creech. Is it fair to question her (in)action on a previous issue, because of her action on a subsequent issue?

quote:

Also, the desire to renovate MSRC from the public was disingenuous at best. This renovation and preservation of the original structure left no room for expansion to provide the additional gym space necessary for growing programs and usage.

I'm not sure the public was dying to rebuild Main Street. Instead, it seemed to me to reflect the community's desire that the PD work with their existing facilities, instead of asking the community to cut a blank check.

quote:

Remember, the PD utilizes many if not all the D41 gym spaces throughout the week. This has been a bur in D41 britches since the deal was struck. Do you think D41 will allow this to continue, when their program usage expands and the community cries foul?

I well recall when the new gyms were built as joint projects between the PD and D41 (along with the assurance that the schools would be able to house our projected enrollment!) I'm not sure what would allow D41 to renege upon the current agreements ... Do you have specifics?

In any event, it seems as tho the gyms ARE succeeding in serving a dual purpose - tho perhaps not exactly the ones intended by voters/taxpayers. The shared funding/use allows BOTH the school and park districts to claim the recently enlarged facilities show their need for yet more building . . . Now THAT'S value for your tax dollars!

Would you be so kind as to direct me to specific studies showing that we lack sufficient gym space? I'm not talking about anecdotes from parents/participants compaining that their desired facility is not always available at the time they feel most desireable for their preferred activity. I am not personally aware of a need to drastically increase gym space - and certainly not in the location and at the cost of the Ackerman Taj Mahal.

quote:

I do recognize the need for gym space for programs. You can't have a clean up day and make that materialize.

Kind of a nasty crack that last, no? You seem to have issues with Ms. Creech, or at least suggest she is naive or unrealistic.

Heck - I recognize the need for gym space for programs. I just don't recognize the need for THIS MUCH MORE gym space IN THIS LOCATION. And I don't think the PD came close to the minimum level of disclosure I would hope for from a public body in explaining their plans.

But, as I noted above, the fight is over, and the builders won. More power to them. It DOES stick in my craw, however, every time I drive up Riford and see that monstrosity blocking what used to be a pleasing open park view.

This came from Ms. Creech. I already voted for her, but I have a feeling she lost Fish's vote:

"We will stop budgeting for facilities construction that does not have community support, including the planned amphitheater for $300,000, platform tennis warming hut for $350,000, and refrigerated ice rink for $1 million, and redirect this money towards projects that we need. The Boathouse at Lake Ellyn should be renovated, not razed. We will put a priority on acquiring open space for new parks and fields."

I had zero clue that any of these projects were planned. Especially razing the boathouse. WTF is that all about?

I wonder what the PD knows about acquiring or repairing fountains.....

As in raze and rebuild?

Frankly, if they knock it down and rebuild it as a usable and attractive facility...sort of a modern version of what is there now...I wouldn't have a problem with that. So long as someone wills the money to the PD. I don't want to actually pay for it.

They could recycle the materials to build the platform tennis hut.

Think about this for a second - a warming "hut" for $350,000. The "hut" I live in right now is worth about $50,000 less than that. And the PD already owns the property it'll sit on. A "hut"? For $350K?!

Dins - I can respect your opinion, and I am not slamming Ms. Creech as much as I am averting the No Incumbants at any cost profile. In the case of the PD, I stated that I am not particularly in favor of the fieldhouse in its current location. I was not in favor of a school there, either.

To Ms. Creech, I apologize for any direct assault on your credibility or integrity.

That having been said, I do not agree with most of her statements regarding the cuurent state of funding and her plans should she be seated.

quote:

I'm not sure the public was dying to rebuild Main Street. Instead, it seemed to me to reflect the community's desire that the PD work with their existing facilities, instead of asking the community to cut a blank check.

The current board, with some exceptions, have been proactive in providing needs for the community. The MSRC plan was voted down to preservationist and historical concerns (Not, concerns over needs for more gym space). Without these groups, there would have been very little opposition to the first referendum attempt. The renovation was necessary to keep the building to code and usable under any circumstance. The choices fell to correct the problems or correct the problems and make it a more usable space for all. We chose the former.

quote:

I well recall when the new gyms were built as joint projects between the PD and D41 (along with the assurance that the schools would be able to house our projected enrollment!) I'm not sure what would allow D41 to renege upon the current agreements ... Do you have specifics?

I don't believe D41 has the ability or desire to renege on the agreement, although there have been discussions between the two entities about the scope and times of the usage and whether it unfairly favors the PD. You will have to check the minutes for both organizations as to whether this is true or not. I do know this discussion hit the local papers in the not too distant past.

Again, I agree with you about the level of communication. It could be better. If we are going to blanket statment that incumbant candidates are all bad, I need more from Ms. Creech and all about their credentials to head up an organization, and budget, than spearheading a clean up campaign. (pun intended )

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
The current board, with some exceptions, have been proactive in providing needs for the community.

Tho I suspect an omitted word or 2 in your 1st sentence, as written it pretty much sums up my impression of the current board. Apparently they feel the community is incapable of identifying what they consider important, so the PD feels free to "provide needs" for the community. At least that is one way to explain how we end up with mini-golf and indoor soccer courts absent any apparent significant public demand for either!

quote:

The MSRC plan was voted down to preservationist and historical concerns (Not, concerns over needs for more gym space).

So long as we are agreeing to disagree so aggreably:

While you blame "preservationist and historical concerns" for the defeat of the MSRC, I'm not sure that entirely or accurately describes events as I recall them. I admit, however, that my recollection may be faulty. After a while the endless referenda disputes tend to run together.

ISTR that MSRC came up for discussion during one of D41's recurrent upheavals. Many folk said if D41 were so pressed for space, why don't the 2 districts work something out so D41 could use/buy space at either MRSC or SARC. (At the time D41 was using MSRC for pre-k, at least untl they decided they could solve their overcrowding issues by moving those programs into the schools. ) In explaining why MSRC simply wouldn't suit D41's needs, the roof and accessibility were cited.

So did the PD come up with a plan to fix the roof and improve accessibility? Maybe a modest addition to install another elevator or 2 and expand the gym? No - they came up with a complete overhaul costing many times the price of such modest renovations. I recall a number of folk (myself included) opposing this proposal independent of historical/preservation concerns.

My recollection of the timing may be off, but ISTR that the PD's proposal of this multi-million $ rehab coincided with their notification that a certain bond/spending/taxing provision was expiring. So to avoid the horrific prospect of taxes acally decreasing, the PD "provided needs" for the community to allow them to campaign that "taxes will not increase!"

THAT was the point at which I recall the historians/preservationists getting involved - in combination with a sizeable group (myself included) who objected that the PD had never proven the community needed/desired such a huge facility in the first place.

I believe there also were concerns as to the suitability of the size/appearance of the proposed building in that particular location, possibly distinct from the historians/preservationists.

Am I completely off base? Was there some strong swelling of popular support for additional gym space predating the proposed MRSC rehab?

Remember, it was within the past 10 years or so that the PD greatly expanded their space by building onto the schools, and acquiring SARC. AND they redid the exterior of MSRC during that time, apparently unaware of the completely intolerable state of the interior.

So now our modest town of <30K will have THREE PD facilities. And D41 will continue to cry that they are underserved. Nope, not a strong recommendation for the incumbents IMO.

That building at Ackerman is really, really big. Strike that....throw in an extra "really"....that's how big it is.

How bout this: it's so big it makes that hideous church in front of it look small!

quote:

Originally posted by ackerman:

On the bright side, there is less park for the drunk snowmobilers to screw around in.

I thought they moved up to Wisconsin.

I keed, I keed

quote:

Originally posted by middlein87:
Think about this for a second - a warming "hut" for $350,000. The "hut" I live in right now is worth about $50,000 less than that. And the PD already owns the property it'll sit on. A "hut"? For $350K?!

Yo Middle...why should the PD be any different than the SB? And clam is right. She lost my vote. You non-paddle people just don't get it.

Did anyone receive the awesomely timed GEPD newsletter? Those current PD commissioners really have it all going on!

Yeah, I got the email newsletter today. Gee, is there a contested election or something? Every member of the park board seems to get a quote in the newsletter.

Hey Clam,

I received it. I'm sure you are chomping at the bit to witch about it. In my opinion it is ABOUT TIME that the GEPD & the commissioners shared what they are doing for the community.

Let's see, we have 4 challengers for the PD race: the 3 tree huggers who only care about one park (across the street from you know who's home), I mean forget about the other 28 - they don't overlook the Creech homestead!

Oh, and then we have Jeff Dickson who stated at the GE LWV Forum: "I'm a turf guy, I like turf" Wow. What single interest-special interest candidate would use his position to push the PD into a financial position that they should not be in? With very little ROI??

I'm all for this young Creech kid to get involved & contribute to the community. But when she LIES to get votes - such as telling everyone that Bill Taylor wasn't going to listen to her - that the Board already made up their mind regarding the scrub brush across the street from her home: than ALL bets are off.

When this little girl states in Glen Ellyn Life that the PD wants to raze the Boat House - when that only happened in the delusional screenplay that runs in her head - than all bets are off.

When this dilettante states that she wants "transparency" in government, comes up with a plan to tear up approx 20+ soccer fields for a full season at $600,000 a pop to turn them into sand based fields - even though they cause more sports injuries to the kids - but DOES NOT divulge that her daddy is a specialist in the field & most likely a potential recipient of his little girl's candidacy...than all bets are off.

Yes Clam. I got the PD newsletter today. My complaint is they should have sent it out sooner.

Oh & ack, I'm sure you will be witching about this as well: sorry the Sports Complex ruined your view: but you should really should take it out on the community: friends, family, CUSTOMERS that voted for it & not those who give their time & trouble to make our little corner of the world a better place.

These people are not career politicians. They have given considerable time & expertise to their community, furthermore if they are so "disconnected" from the community WHY did they reverse the decision regarding Ackerman. They listened to you. The scrub brush reigns! They listened to you.

Please join me in supporting & voting for Experience that Counts & just as important: Character that Counts. Aubrey, Jourdan, Schoen & Taylor for the GE Park Board.

quote:

Originally posted by camdenmarie:
Let's see, we have 4 challengers for the PD race: the 3 tree huggers who only care about one park (across the street from you know who's home)

You've got to admit, the Parkulous project is embarrassing...where did it rank on the community survey?

quote:

When this dilettante states that she wants "transparency" in government, comes up with a plan to tear up approx 20+ soccer fields for a full season at $600,000 a pop to turn them into sand based fields - even though they cause more sports injuries to the kids - but DOES NOT divulge that her daddy is a specialist in the field & most likely a potential recipient of his little girl's candidacy...than all bets are off.

Actually, she did say this at the LWVGE forum.