Anonymous said...
As a “yes supporter” in the last referendum, I have been disappointed. I am surprised that the School Board has proposed a new referendum. After the referendum was defeated in the spring, and with down-turn in housing I do not understand how the School Board can justify a new referendum. I have been asking questions around the neighborhood and have learned quite a bit about our situation.
As citizens, this referendum raises serious concerns about the integrity of the School Board and Dr. Fasbender. The campaign for the last referendum was positioned by the School Board and Dr. Fasbender as being tax neutral. In retrospect, that was too good to be true. Since I have started to look into our actual situation, I have been shocked to learn that our taxes could actually go down, by as much as 30%, if we do not pass a referendum in the near future. This was not presented to the community by our School Board as an option to the community. Instead, looking back at the last referendum, it appears that the School Board was creating a need for a new school; and a reason to keep taxes high.
Our elected School Board has been chosen by the community to oversee the school in the interest of the citizens. I am now concerned with the integrity of the School Board. I am starting to question everything we get from the School.
Needless to say, I am not naive anymore about our school. Just because the Steve Todd and Luara Domoto claim the school is at capacity does not make the statement "true". I have learned that school enrollment is virtually the same now (2006) as it was in 2002. In 2002, we did not hear cries from the school that it is overcrowded. In 2002, we did not have a school board searching for mobile classrooms. In 2002 we did not condemn children to converted "janitor's closets". If the numbers of students have not gone up since 2002, what has changed in the building to create over-capacity?
As a former “yes supporter”, I am happy now that the last referendum was defeated. I will vote no, because I do not believe that the school board's intentions are aligned with the community and it is not evident to me that the School Board and Dr. Fasbender truly have the best interest of the community in mind.
This Comment was Posted 4:43 PM, October 19, 2006 under Six Months later and $7M more... It was so great that I needed to move it to the main page. Vote NO
As a “yes supporter” in the last referendum, I have been disappointed. I am surprised that the School Board has proposed a new referendum. After the referendum was defeated in the spring, and with down-turn in housing I do not understand how the School Board can justify a new referendum. I have been asking questions around the neighborhood and have learned quite a bit about our situation.
As citizens, this referendum raises serious concerns about the integrity of the School Board and Dr. Fasbender. The campaign for the last referendum was positioned by the School Board and Dr. Fasbender as being tax neutral. In retrospect, that was too good to be true. Since I have started to look into our actual situation, I have been shocked to learn that our taxes could actually go down, by as much as 30%, if we do not pass a referendum in the near future. This was not presented to the community by our School Board as an option to the community. Instead, looking back at the last referendum, it appears that the School Board was creating a need for a new school; and a reason to keep taxes high.
Our elected School Board has been chosen by the community to oversee the school in the interest of the citizens. I am now concerned with the integrity of the School Board. I am starting to question everything we get from the School.
Needless to say, I am not naive anymore about our school. Just because the Steve Todd and Luara Domoto claim the school is at capacity does not make the statement "true". I have learned that school enrollment is virtually the same now (2006) as it was in 2002. In 2002, we did not hear cries from the school that it is overcrowded. In 2002, we did not have a school board searching for mobile classrooms. In 2002 we did not condemn children to converted "janitor's closets". If the numbers of students have not gone up since 2002, what has changed in the building to create over-capacity?
As a former “yes supporter”, I am happy now that the last referendum was defeated. I will vote no, because I do not believe that the school board's intentions are aligned with the community and it is not evident to me that the School Board and Dr. Fasbender truly have the best interest of the community in mind.
This Comment was Posted 4:43 PM, October 19, 2006 under Six Months later and $7M more... It was so great that I needed to move it to the main page. Vote NO
posted by Candidate at
8:38 PM
18 Comments:
I was a “No Voter” in the last election. Perhaps our community is starting to actually come together. I never thought I would actually agree with a "yes supporter".
Last spring’s $18 million dollar referendum was defeated 2-1 at a time when the economic outlook was more positive than it is now. The School Board claimed that new incoming students from Tall Grass, Terra Cota and Preston Pines would quickly overload the school, and we needed to build immediately to be ready. Now, only a few months later Tall Grass is on “mothballs”, Preston Pines has not even started, and rumors swirl about the viability of Terra Cota. Yet, the School Board increased the amount of the referendum from $18 million to over $24 million and changed their justification to "we are already over capacity NOW" and "trust us with your money, the interest rates are low" rationalization. It appears that the ‘rules’ have been changed by the school board since the last election to attempt to re-justify the need to build onto the school.
Despite the poor economic outlook for new housing and the expressed clear interest of taxpayers in the last referendum, Steve Todd, Luara Domoto and Mary Fasbender, now are asking the community for $24 million dollars. Clearly, Mr. Todd, Mrs. Domoto and Dr. Fasbender have an agenda to build a school regardless of the facts or expressed interest of the community.
It is in the best interest of the District 46 community to closely scrutinize all of the information presented as "facts" by the School Board and Dr. Fasbender. As I have learned, there have been numerous occasions where information presented by the School Board and Dr. Fasbender have been twisted to serve a self-serving purpose like “claiming the land for the school was a gift from the developer”. We need a School Board dedicated to ensuring the education of our children, not "hell bent" on building a school no matter the situation or tax-payer desires.
I could support a new school, if it were recommended by a school board that has integrity. I will not be voting for this referendum or this board anytime soon.
By
Anonymous, at 10:33 PM, October 19, 2006
Folks, here is something else to consider. The 25 mil the district is asking for will not improve the education of our children. This money can only be used for land, construction and improvements to buildings, it will be held in the construction fund. This referendum money can NOT be used for staffing of the new school, can NOT be used for maintaining and operation of the new school. It can NOT be used to pay for additional teachers.
So what will operate the new school? The district will tell you that taxdollars from the new developments together with the transition fees from the new homes will do this. With the slow down in new home construction,down turn of the housing market, surrounding planned developments being put on hold or delayed ... this is no longer a realistic assumption.
The district then would have to resort to another option which is to come back to us taxpayers and ask for a referendum for the education fund. This money could be used for teachers and education related expenses. Good luck with passing this one. This is why school districts going for referendum for building bonds usually are asking for bonds for the education fund at the same time.
So, since there is no money for staffing and operating the new school, our tax bills will go up and nothing will change for our kids. The classes will be the same size they are now since we can not hire new teachers and no additional programs will be possible.
We can not afford to build a new school right now ... it is years to early ... it is putting the cart before the horse. Vote NO!
By
Anonymous, at 10:37 PM, October 19, 2006
I do not understand the negative nature of the "No" people. We need to trust our school officials...they are the experts, without our support they cannot do the best by our children
By
Anonymous, at 11:49 PM, October 19, 2006
Pass the kool-aid, a "yes" voter is obviously thirsty.
The clear need we have at this point is to not blindly accept the position taken by our school board. Their actions, from referendum to referendum, do not support reality which calls into question motive. It is difficult to support anyone when you do not trust their motives.
By
Anonymous, at 11:56 PM, October 19, 2006
You raise a number of valid issues. Also, consider the cost of operating a new building. If you think our taxes are only going to go up $91 per year, think again. Even D46's own consultants, PMA, thought D46's projections on expected revenues were "very aggressive" and that was when Tall Grass was included. Now that Tall Grass is in mothballs, operating monies will have to come from existing taxpayers and that will come from more taxes. Yikes!
By
Anonymous, at 6:53 PM, October 20, 2006
Today a reporter and/or photographer has been spotted at the elementary school, guided by the superintendent. Among other, they were also invited to visit the mobile classroom.
Before anything will hit the paper I would like to clarify the usage of the mobile. One part is occupied by the transportation department. The other classroom is used for the gifted/accelerated math and language program. Reading recovery is using part of this room as well, I believe. The students in ACES math are spending 1 class period per day in this room. All other reading/language arts classes do not meet daily, most of them only once per week for one class period.
Please note: there is no regular classroom accommodated in this trailer. Also, this usage of the trailer is nothing new; the gifted/talented math and language program has been there for at least the past 6 years. This is how long my children have had classes there.
I did ask my child how it is going out there in the mobile and received the following answer: "I like it, I like to walk there and catch some fresh air especially on the days when we have to have indoor recess".
This is nothing but more scare tactics, folks. The only excuse in their favor I can come up with is ... it's Halloween.
By
Anonymous, at 9:35 PM, October 20, 2006
Booo! Cosmo, your insights are helpful.
Will Mary Fasbender ever stop trying to create unfounded reasons for voters to support the referendum. This is no way for a highly paid professional to behave.
The flier that came home today from school was another shameful attempt to communicate to the public that we have overcrowding. As an example. the flier stated "Band, art, science, music and other programs will lose their specialized spaces and instruction time will be lost." Why now?
The school has the same enrollment as it did in 2002. We have been able to maintain usage of these rooms for specialized activities since 2002 without any reported problems. What has changed? A desire by Dr. Fasbender and the school board to push through a referendum. With an election on the line, we are "hearing" Mary Fasbender suggest that we will now lose our specialized spaces for activities such as band and science. Does she think that we will not be intelligent enough to realize that both the schools space and enrollment have remained flat since 2002? Threatening citizens that we will lose activities if we do not vote on a new building is absurb! What a pathetic blackmail tactic!
Mary, if you cared for the community, why would you not recommend adding on to the existing schools, as intended in the original design, to accomodate higher enrollment. And, of course, you might want to time the building additions with actual new student enrollments. We may not even need a new addition for a few years.
Mary must go! She lacks the professionalism to lead a school like District 46.
By
Anonymous, at 10:04 PM, October 20, 2006
I also found the flier to be less than professional. Suggesting that we will have "less time for personalized instruction" is a joke. My children do not seem to be challenged or overworked... where is the homework? My children are not receiving any personalized instruction. I get it; build a $25 million dollar school, and the teachers will continue to provide personalized instruction. Blackmail?
What is wrong with our school board? Why do they tolerate this behavior from a highly paid superintendent?
By
Anonymous, at 10:11 PM, October 20, 2006
I am concerned about the split in our community. I admit that I am not very well informed about school issues. But I would like to see our school building to be the best in Chicagoland. Look at the homes in our community. We can afford a much better school. I do not understand why building a school is so controversial.
How can we bring everyone together? This is not difficult.
By
Anonymous, at 11:25 PM, October 20, 2006
it's not the building that counts, it's the quality of education. let's stop focusing on just a building and focus on better education.
By
Anonymous, at 8:26 AM, October 21, 2006
The reason that building a school is so controversial is that it will put the district in a terrible debt situation. Taxpayers will not foot the bill so the children will be the losers. Just look at other nearby districts. When a school is in financial trouble, programs are cut and class sizes increase.
People will come together when D46 proposes reasonable, affordable expansion that stays in step with the growth of the tax base in the community.
By
Anonymous, at 10:05 AM, October 21, 2006
I just picked up my child from a party in Oakwood Hills and drove by the school. I noticed, as I drove by, that the sign in front of the school had a message that said something similar to the following: “Vote: Give back to taxpayers the overage of the 2002 levy.”
Using publicly funded media (such as signs or newsletters) to fund a partisan position is illegal. The not so subtle position suggested by the sign is another example of the “blackmail” posturing that has been adopted by the school BOD: “Vote YES and you will get a check back from the school for past tax collection overages ‘maybe’”.
Perhaps, the community should pursue legal actions against the school BOD for permitting this type of blatant political agenda being promoted on taxpayer funded property.
Originally, I laughed when the school BOD put the second resolution on the upcoming ballot declaring the option to return money to the citizens. The School Board has always had this option, and never needed a resolution to give money back. If the school BOD believed that the interest of District 46 taxpayers was their most important responsibility, they would not have covered up and hid the overage in tax collections.
The message on the school sign is a blatant attempt to mislead voters! My question to the school BOD is why have you decided every year since 2002 not return money that was collected in excess to what voters allowed in the 2002 referendum? Remember, this is essentially the same school BOD that was in office in 2002, including Steve Todd, Karen Bowman, and Heidi Jessup. Their spring 2006 proposed referendum for $18 million was soundly defeated, and a critical complaint by the “no voters” was the mistrust created in the community surrounding the non-disclosure of windfall tax collections that exceed the levels approved by tax payers since 2002. The school BOD took the excess money and spent it….and did not think it was important to inform the public that the excess funding even existed. This goes beyond a simple oversight…it is a malicious action toward District 46 taxpayers.
The windfalls from the 2002 referendum greatly exceeded the levels that were approved by taxpayers. Then windfalls greatly exceeded the original requested tax level by the school BOD in the referendum. Not only did the school BOD elect to not return the windfall funds…they did elected not to disclose the windfall to taxpayers. Does this action suggest that the school BOD can be entrusted with the $25 million they are requesting from the District 46 community in the current referendum?
By
Anonymous, at 11:11 PM, October 21, 2006
I’ve asked School Board members to show us the economic impact of having passed the referendum in March? No one wants to comment. The School Board would have put our community in significant financial hardship if that referendum would have passed.
They would have accepted premium bonds at higher rates, expected ground to have broken on Tallgrass and had been waiting endlessly on trasition/impact fees to offset our costs. They would have had to break their promise of being tax neutral and force us to bear the brunt of their mistakes by raising our taxes.
You don’t hear anyone apologizing for the last referendum being untimely or foolishly wrong. So why are they doing it again? Do they want to ruin the community by making our taxes the highest in the region? Do certain individual want this so badly that they lost their objectivity? Or is it more sinister and their pride has gotten in the way of making sound decisions for our kids.
By
Candidate, at 8:44 PM, October 22, 2006
Excellent points Chris.
I am also concerned about the district leadership being blinded by it's own pride and ego. The reason for a referendum proposal last March was a bit of a stretch in logic...but this November referendum makes absolutely no sense at all. This is D-46 leadership greed in its purest form. Very sad. My wife and I will vote NO.
By
Anonymous, at 10:11 AM, October 23, 2006
Chris Dalton - your kids don't even go to this school yet and probably will not- oh by the way - have you taken a tour of the school to know what you are talking about? Have you seen the overcrowded rooms? Probably not.
By
Anonymous, at 1:45 PM, October 23, 2006
Reading through this blog, there appears to be a D-46 pattern emerging. Someone pegged it in an earlier posting as "pride" or "ego." If you read, "you don't know what you are talking about" or "you don't understand"...that signals arrogance at someone else's expense. Maybe that's the D-46 leardership mode of thinking. The just-vote-Yes-because-you-wouldn't-understand tatic seems to be the D-46 mode of operation. Does someone actually think that will get more Yes votes?
So, here is the tip of the day:
If you want to gather honey, stop kicking over the beehive.
in other words,
If you want to pass a referendum, stop farting in the faces of the D-46 tax payers.
By
Anonymous, at 4:36 PM, October 23, 2006
QUOTE: Anonymous said...
I do not understand the negative nature of the "No" people. We need to trust our school officials...they are the experts, without our support they cannot do the best by our children
11:49 PM, October 19, 2006
Who ever posted this obviously needs to learn more. It not negitivity it is negitive to those who do not want to hear that we should not build a school.
Does it make sense to you to build a school when 48% of the housing expected initially to support the school being built is now on hold. On hold ofr 5 years. Preston Pines does not give the same impact fees to the school. It is not in Prairie Grove and does not consist of the same structure.
Open and Honest Facts have yet to come from the School Board. I have got open and honest facts from the Village. I heard that Tall Grass was going to be delayed a long time ago. But the school board kept saying that Tall Grass is starting in the Fall of 2006. Now we are loong at the 20011. This does not make you think twice.
The developer has not entered a contract to purchase land from the Seagers... Yet this constists of roughly 1/3 of the Tall Grass Developement. What if this is not purchased in 2011. We may not have as much cash flow as "we thought".
Now that Tall grass is not going to happen... how much more do we spend for a sepetic system. Remember before we were supposed to get that Water and Waste hook up. Thats gone now
I would love to hear whatthe heck is going on with Terra Cotta. That seems dead. At the last village meeting Westminster Swanson was given 10 days to get "caught up" AGAIN. I bet ya they did not pay that. I guess I will have to the village meeting and ask.
My last thing I do not like is what is the deal with the "TOWN MEETING" the school was supposed to have. They did not answer any of the questions. Talk about trying to control the information and being angry and negitive it seemed like something out of a movie. The school board is out of line. I was a yes vote and after going back 6 months later I am done until someone can prove to me this is the right thing to do...
VOTE NO ....
By
Anonymous, at 5:09 PM, October 23, 2006
Vote No .... its to early for a new school.
BTW
If we give back the money if this get approved....
Are we giving money back the hoouseholds that did not contribute taxes when the District 46 School Board decided to take advantage of a "LOOP HOLE" in the system and take more money than the were to take.
Is this the same kind of "Loop Hole" the SB 857 is....
By
Anonymous, at 5:14 PM, October 23, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home