Just to give a run down of my "no" vote. My issues were:
1) Funding source - The proposal was to take money from the operations funds for the portables. Months ago, during discussion of adding additional summer work, we briefly touched on Hadley portables. At the time it was unknown if there would be a proposal for additional portables or not. I was concerned about voting for the additional work without knowing if we'd get hit with another $400,000 bill for portables (at the time it was a guessed-at cost of $400K). The response at the time was that we had developer funds, that are generally earmarked for Hadley since it benefits all students, that we could spend on the portables. The current proposal did not use developer funds.

2) Uncertainty of what the Hadley New Horizons recommendations would yield in terms of space needs. I didn't want to be back next year looking at more portables.

I think it was during this point where I stated that given the programs we offer and the class size targets we have, we are stressed at Hadley. At the end of the day, if we want to get rid of portables at Hadley, I think that we have to go to one of two options, - either change our programs and class sizes to fit our kids into the space we have or build bricks and mortar to accommodate our kids and programs as they are now. The situation proposed and approved is a bit of a punt - we're not building the bricks and mortar and we won't change our programs to suit the space. I understand that there are probably other more radical solutions (move the 6th graders back to the elementary schools for instance) that could also fix issues at Hadley, but I personally think the likelihood of voter approval of such options is slim.

I lean toward proposing bricks and mortar at Hadley and keeping our programs and class size targets where they are at. But in the end the community needs to decide what it wants (program changes vs. bricks and mortar). I do not think that last years referendum decided that issue. There were so many reasons for voting no, discussed on this message board previously, that I cannot say with any certainty that a modest addition of space to Hadley has been or would be rejected by the voters.

3) This looks awful to the community. No enrollment increase, no staff increase, but more portables. This sort of ties in with my statement above. If we have demonstrable space needs now and for the foreseeable future, lets make the case and try to build or accept the rejection and change how we provide services.

There were other issues too, including siting of the portables themselves and leasing vs. buying (not discussed at last night's meeting but discussed previously).

The most compelling argument for the portables was as a temporary fix until a bricks and mortar solution can be installed. I've no doubt that the rooms will provide more flexibility in scheduling, pull classes out of the PODS, and allow us to stop breaking up the LA 90 minute blocks. I think those are all desirable outcomes. It hurts the financial case, however, of the inevitable bricks and mortar proposal. That is to say, the upfront $600,000 for portables will have already been spent. So when faced the options of "sticking with the current portables" or building classrooms to replace the portables, keeping them will be that much more financially appealing to voters deciding what to do.

Anyway, if you've got any questions for me fire away. As always, this post is solely my opinion.

I want to clarify that the only reason I suggested Bob and/or Steve should have walked out was to prevent the vote from being able to happen, not a slam against Bob or Steve in ANY way.

quote:

Originally posted by Amy:
I want to clarify that the only reason I suggested Bob and/or Steve should have walked out was to prevent the vote from being able to happen, not a slam against Bob or Steve in ANY way.

I think everyone who knows you and reads here understood that. I just wonder if there was in fact a quorum last night. Can they vote to spend money without 4 yes votes?

Daily Herald Fencepost May 18 letter reminds me of D41 practices:
It is said that laughter makes you live longer. And that good news for Naperville Unit District 203 taxpayers.
In one of its more recent propaganda e mails, the district proudly proclaimed $270,000 in savings as a result of their AAA Standard & Poor rating. It goes on to correlate this savings to "stong financial management."
For the sake of a really good belly laugh and a longer life, let's look at District 203's historic fiscal performance.
It over-collected $30 million to $40 million from a deceitful 2002 referendum.
It's doubled spending by almost $100 million in 10 short years while failing to adequately address facility needs, resulting in a second tax referendum in six years.
It continues the practice of retirement giveaways to boost pensions.
And with student enrollment declining, they're approving budgets with 5 percent increases.
District 203's preposterous e mail claiming "strong financial management" has just added years to the lives of every District 203 taxpayer.

Mike Davitt
Naperville

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I just wonder if there was in fact a quorum last night. Can they vote to spend money without 4 yes votes?

According to the link you posted earlier, the vote certainly sounds valid. The "quorum" section defines a quorum as a majority being physically present, which they met. 5 out of 7 is more than half. The "voting method" section says that a majority of the votes cast determines the outcome. 3 out of 5 is more than half. The only special requirement about votes to spend money that I can see is the requirement for a roll call vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I just wonder if there was in fact a quorum last night. Can they vote to spend money without 4 yes votes?

Sounds like you're asking one of those questions that should require a thoughtful answer from the district. However, it would be like asking them how 55 cents turned into a $1.10 and getting the answer "we were within the law in our dealings."

How would it have been to hear something like this, Rob?

"D41 is very grateful every day for the support the community has provided to students over the years and strives to give back to the community by providing an exceptional education to its children. 92% of our revenues come from the taxpayers -- we need you."

"We continue to strive for open and honest communication in all of our work. In the future, we will apply our continuous improvement model to enhance future communications with the community."

Would you have liked to hear that last night? Does it sound familiar? Well, it should. Those words were read into the record on June 27, 2005 by then-Board President John Vivoda. Guess they forgot, when applying the spirit of the rules. Maybe he forgot to hand over the play book when handing over the gavel.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ohma,

quote:

Originally posted by Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I just wonder if there was in fact a quorum last night. Can they vote to spend money without 4 yes votes?

According to the link you posted earlier, the vote certainly sounds valid. The "quorum" section defines a quorum as a majority being physically present, which they met. 5 out of 7 is more than half. The "voting method" section says that a majority of the votes cast determines the outcome. 3 out of 5 is more than half. The only special requirement about votes to spend money that I can see is the requirement for a roll call vote.

I think I understand. What happens in the case of 4 Board members present - 4 out of 7 is a majority and equals a quorum, but a 2 to 2 vote goes nowhere.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:

quote:

Originally posted by Paul:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:
I just wonder if there was in fact a quorum last night. Can they vote to spend money without 4 yes votes?

According to the link you posted earlier, the vote certainly sounds valid. The "quorum" section defines a quorum as a majority being physically present, which they met. 5 out of 7 is more than half. The "voting method" section says that a majority of the votes cast determines the outcome. 3 out of 5 is more than half. The only special requirement about votes to spend money that I can see is the requirement for a roll call vote.

I think I understand. What happens in the case of 4 Board members present - 4 out of 7 is a majority and equals a quorum, but a 2 to 2 vote goes nowhere.

This also reaks of a Board President calling for the postponement of the vote to a week that the Board President knows there are two less members. Community Trust; horse%##t. Maybe our President can wear this:

quote:

Originally posted by ohma:
He used medical analogies throughout his comments. The “band-aid” (aka the “six pack” of portable classrooms) buys us time to “cover the wound and increase healing, but the situation could get worse.” Hadley has "arterial constriction."

I hate those types of analogies to try to prove an argument.

Reminds me of the movie "Being There":



President "Bobby" : Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener : As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President "Bobby" : In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President "Bobby": Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President "Bobby": Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener : Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand : Hmm!
Chance the Gardener : Hmm!
President "Bobby" : Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President "Bobby" : I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill the school board.

"The district is committed to being open and transparent in all its decisions."

John Vivoda, June 27, 2005

Sheesh. Relax. It's my observation that all the Board - the President most of all - wanted all seven members present specifically because this was an important/contended vote. The two who could not come had commitments that precluded them from attending in person or via audio.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Solak:
Sheesh. Relax. It's my observation that all the Board - the President most of all - wanted all seven members present specifically because this was an important/contended vote. The two who could not come had commitments that precluded them from attending in person or via audio.

Sorry Bob. You reschedule the vote. Even Daley rescheduled the Children's Museum vote due to alderman being out of town. Everyone should vote on controversial topics.

What was the rush? I mean, they haven't even figured out what classes they are going to teach anyway, right?

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Solak:
Sheesh. Relax. It's my observation that all the Board - the President most of all - wanted all seven members present specifically because this was an important/contended vote. The two who could not come had commitments that precluded them from attending in person or via audio.

Sorry Bob. You reschedule the vote. Even Daley rescheduled the Children's Museum vote due to alderman being out of town. Everyone should vote on controversial topics.

Agree 100%. And I agree with Dan below...what's the rush?

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Solak:
Sheesh. Relax. It's my observation that all the Board - the President most of all - wanted all seven members present specifically because this was an important/contended vote. The two who could not come had commitments that precluded them from attending in person or via audio.

Sorry Bob. You reschedule the vote. Even Daley rescheduled the Children's Museum vote due to alderman being out of town. Everyone should vote on controversial topics.

Agree 100%. And I agree with Dan below...what's the rush?

Well, to Dan's point, the portables are meant to provide space to avoid breaking up 90 minute Language Arts blocks into separate 45 minute blocks. I'm not sure if Dan was referring to the TBD changes to the exploratory classes.

As for rescheduling the vote, I suppose that was possible. I personally do not know how the other two members would have voted. I have an educated guess, but I don't know for certain.

My son has his LA block broken up. I wouldn't pay a penny to try and change that. It's been just fine - in fact, probably good for him as he can use a movement break.

My Hadley LA student has his classes broken up, too. I agree that there are benefits from the break in one subject.

I have been frustrated for many years by D41's ability to find a consultant to come in and push an expensive plan that is the next new and great thing in education.

My child has the 90 minute LA block. When I shadowed him earlier in the school year, that block was agonizing to sit through. The kids were definitely losing focus by the end of the time period.

I find it difficult to believe that a 90 minute class benefits anyone!

I was unconvinced of the clear benefit from or need for the long language block when they made that change when my kids were at Hadley.

Glad to see that the passing of a few years has made things so clear. Not only is it tremendous, but it is worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for - if not a bricks and mortar solution!

And once again Schoolweek was passing off this consultant as the ne plus ultra on the matter. Has anyone suggested that this consultant is anything other than a hired gun for districts hellbent on expansion?