Glenview referendun defeated

[The Jackal]

The two people seemingly arguing the most about preschool in District 100 don't even live there.

And you two both keep doing it over and over and over.

Let other people discuss the topic.  You two (Jackal and Bonster) just won't quit and shut down ANY discussion of preschool in D100.

I've asked you nicely.  Please humor me.

OK. I live in D100.  The problem with this whole discussion is this - there are two issues:

1. Do you support public pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds?

2. Do you support the finanical plan proposed to the D100 board last summer to pay for public pre-school for 3 and 4 year olds?

  If I had gone to my boss with a financial plan that called for a large capital expenditure, a large on-going yearly cost, a 70% increase in the company's debt and which had only a revenue life span of only 1 year, this is what would have happened.

First, my boss would have laughed in my face for presenting a financial proposal that had a life span of only one year without any sources of revenue to support the project in the years after year 1.

  Second, he would then have thrown me out of the room for presenting such a stupid non-sensical financial plan that would have put the company deep into debt without any long term thinking for the years beyond year 1.

That, Brian, is the main problem.  Yet, the advocates have made it out to be that opposition to a fool hardy financial plan is equivalent to being Dath Vader and a meany to little kids.

  That is what people are starting to resent, especially when they hear it over and over again for 6 months.

  Ted

Ted brings out another great point which I forgot to mention in my posts, namely, the sheer absurdity and foolishness of a one year plan with a XXXX cost.

I guess it also doesn't help when the president of a citizens activist group and most vocal proponent of this plan shamelessly admits to having no qualms about "backdooring" his fellow residents and/or utlizing children as pawns in this crusade. I'm not a genie here, but I think that too has probably gotten under the skin of most residents. Just a guess...

Nonetheless, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to post in your topic. Its time for me to depart.

[Robert Pauly]

Refinancing bonds is the lesser of two evils.  Doing nothing is the greater.

While I think that going to referendum is unnecessary and a waste of precious resources, it, too, is the lesser of two evils.  Doing nothing is greater.

[The Jackal]

Deceiving people (and using children as pawns to achieve your end) is the GREATEST evil of them all.

Berwyn has NEVER said it will do NOTHING.

What Berwyn has said is that it will NOT do it YOUR way.

You hear only what you want to hear....and frame the issue(s) in as self serving a manner as possible.

[OakParkSpartan]

Really Jackal?

So much for civility.

Ok.  I think I have this worked out.  Was really hoping to not have to use it.

[Ted]

Refinancing bonds is the lesser of two evils.  Doing nothing is the greater.

While I think that going to referendum is unnecessary and a waste of precious resources, it, too, is the lesser of two evils.  Doing nothing is greater.

Bob, the bond re-financing would have supported the program for only 1 (or at most 2) years.  After that, what did the district planning on doing?

  At the meetings last summer, it was said that after year 1 or 2, they would go to the voters with a referendum.

  That is what does NOT make sense. If the district is eventually going to go to the voters to finance this, do it in YEAR 0 rather than increasing the debt by 70% and then asking for money. 

  This is the exact same strategy that D201 employed (run up the debt and then plead for money) and voters resented it when a referendum was put on the ballot.

  Again, the financial plan proposed was ill conceived - it did not address the issue long term and it would have increased the debt dramatically for a 1 year program.

Sorry, Bob, but that approach is infeasible.  Ask for the money BEFORE HAND rather than putting a boat load of debt on the tax payers and THEN asking for the tax rate increase.

  Like I said, this is deja vu all over again with what we went through with D201 and the same backdoor approach to large capital projects (e.g the Freshman Center and the Alternative School).

  Add on to that the proposed re-building of Hiawatha and you have Jay Cuneen all over again.  D201 in 2002 turns into D100 in 2012.

  If you want pre-school, pay for it the right way.

[OakParkSpartan]

Is there a long term financial plan document that lays out what the district expects it will need in the coming years?

[watcher]

Is there a long term financial plan document that lays out what the district expects it will need in the coming years?

MORE!

Je n'ai plus aucun argent.

[Robert Pauly]

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.

Ted: There were a few plans on how to best use the proceeds from the refinancing, each more aggressive - from squeezing preschoolers into existing schools, renting trailers, retrofitting LaVergne and demolishing and rebuilding LaVergne, etc.  I'm not sure that the district ever settled upon a plan, but they claimed to possess resources to run the preschool for 3 to 5 years.  A one-year, doomsday scenario makes no sense to me, either.

As for a referendum, I charged them to run one on June 9, 2009.  I charged them again in October.  IMO, it's a waste of resources - I'd retrofit LaVergne, use the refinancing to get up and running for 3 to 5 years, then go to the community armed with results, if necessary, but I acknowledge that others feel differently.  We elect a board to make these decisions, and I abide by their decisions.  What I don't abide by is doing nothing - futures are compromised - if 30% of your product didn't meet expectations, Ted, you wouldn't get kicked out of your boss's office, you'd get fired.

[Ted]

Ted: There were a few plans on how to best use the proceeds from the refinancing, each more aggressive - from squeezing preschoolers into existing schools, renting trailers, retrofitting LaVergne and demolishing and rebuilding LaVergne, etc.  I'm not sure that the district ever settled upon a plan, but they claimed to possess resources to run the preschool for 3 to 5 years.  A one-year, doomsday scenario makes no sense to me, either.

  That's not what was stated at the meeting in July.  In the meeting in July, it was stated that the bond would bring in enough money to pay teachers for one year. After one year, another source of revenue would have to be found to pay for those newly hired teachers.

  Based on the numbers presented, that is also what the numbers showed - a one year pay of teacher's salary out of the bond.  The bond did not cover salaries after year 1 and the only solution after year 1 would be to either drain the existing fund balances or go to referendum.

  There was no long term financial plan presented for funding public pre-school for 3 year olds and 4 year olds - at least, not one that was presented in the public meetings on the bond issue.

...  We elect a board to make these decisions, and I abide by their decisions. 

  And, yet,  it was the school board that decided against the proposed plan (and subsequent debt increase). Why did 4 school board members believe the plan was not in the best interests of the district?

  I don't think anyone can say that Joanne Zendol is anti-education.  Just before the vote, Joanne read a very good statement about why the financial plan that was proposed was not something she could vote for.

  There's a reason that 4 school members voted against the plan - If the plan was a good plan, it would have passed the school board with flying colors.  There's a reason it failed (and it isn't because of tax-o-phobia)

  If this was such a great plan, then why did 4 school board members vote against it?

...  What I don't abide by is doing nothing ...   

Then don't do nothing.  If you feel that strongly about it, then circulate a petition to put a referendum on the ballot and convince the voters.

  You don't need permission from the school board to put a referendum on the ballot.  No one's stopping you from going door to door, collecting signatures and putting a referendum on the ballot.

[Robert Pauly]

At the August 24, 2011 Working Cash Bonds Issuance Community Forum - which I believe supersedes your July information - question #6 was: "Is it true that the $14 million is mostly for buildings and the preschool program will need to go to referendum one year after starting in order to completely fund the program's operating budget"?

Stan Fields answer:  "No."

Question #39 was: "How will the district be able to sustain a pre-k center?  Referendum ....... ?

Stan's answer:  "In the near term, D100 has sufficient reserves.  Depending on the scope of the program, alternative or additional funding will be required to sustain a preschool program that serves all children within 4 to 7 years."

So what's with the 1 year propaganda?  "Tax-o-phobia"?

As for the board, all I'll say is that for every dissenting board vote, there are 200 D100 students who do not meet state expectations.  It's too bad they don't make statements.

As for your suggestion on a referendum, remind me to add you to my list of political advisers.

[Ted]

At the August 24, 2011 Working Cash Bonds Issuance Community Forum - which I believe supersedes your July information - question #6 was: "Is it true that the $14 million is mostly for buildings and the preschool program will need to go to referendum one year after starting in order to completely fund the program's operating budget"?

Stan Fields answer:  "No."

Question #39 was: "How will the district be able to sustain a pre-k center?  Referendum ....... ?

Stan's answer:  "In the near term, D100 has sufficient reserves.  Depending on the scope of the program, alternative or additional funding will be required to sustain a preschool program that serves all children within 4 to 7 years."

So what's with the 1 year propaganda?  "Tax-o-phobia"?

As for the board, all I'll say is that for every dissenting board vote, there are 200 D100 students who do not meet state expectations.  It's too bad they don't make statements.

As for your suggestion on a referendum, remind me to add you to my list of political advisers.

Right... the answer was if the district did not go to referendum, it would have to dip into and drain the fund balances after the first year.  The 70% increase in the debt covered only the first year. Draining the fund balances after the first year was not a good solution.

  The school board members understood that (thank God) - they understood what Fields was proposing was a dangerous thing to continue the program after one year. It would have meant dipping into and draining the fund balances.

  The 70% increase in the debt covered only one year's worth of teachers salaries.  After one year, it was either go to referendum or drain the district of its fund balances.

  Draining the fund balances is not a good idea, especially if the # of students K-8 balloons up to 4,000 - which is one of the reasons Zendol gave for voting against the proposal.

  So, it's not propaganda.  It's fact. The proposal would have put the district in a precarious position if funding after the first year didn't come via referendum.

[buzz]

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.

[OakParkSpartan]

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.

Buzz,

Final warning.  Disagree with Bob, but you don't need to start calling names.

Clear enough?

[The Jackal]

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.

Buzz,

Final warning.  Disagree with Bob, but you don't need to start calling names.

Clear enough?

WOW.

[OakParkSpartan]

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent the accusations and insinuations in this thread.

For the record, I'd like to state that I resent your Nixonian approach to forcing this ill concieved hoax upon the residents.

Buzz,

Final warning.  Disagree with Bob, but you don't need to start calling names.

Clear enough?

WOW.

You too.  When I'm trying to administer this board, I don't need people giving me shit.

[The Jackal]

Nobody is giving you "shit" Brian. Step back from the pc and see what you've done here. Nowhere but nowhere in buzz's last post does he call Bob any sort of name. NOWHERE.

Just like there's NOTHING uncivil or udnuly argumentative about ANY of my posts in this thread.

Fact is, Bob Pauly has basically admitted in this thread and previous threads to advocating "back door" methods (ie trickery, deceipt) to achieve his desired result, yet when someone else points it out to him, that person is tagged a "name caller" by YOU the administrator? Let me remind you of the "Skrydmarks" moniker you've tagged on the current 4th ward alderwoman. And now you threaten others with God knows what for "name calling"? Ironic (to say the least) wouldn't you say? You deride Bonster and I as a noresidents for chiming in on a "District 100" issue, yet you don't live in Dist 100 either, nor have you ever. Perplexing "logic", to say the least.

If you want to create a thread simply to advocate on behalf of and/or espouse a certain position, then simply close it to those with opposing views. If however, you want healthy debate and discussion (especially of the non insulting/non antagonistic variety found on this thread) on an issue (which I believe is what forums like this are intended for), then I can't for the life of me understand how you can attempt to 'filter" content based on your own viewpoint, especially when your viewpoint is shared by only one other poster in this thread. In fact, your viewpoint is not only opposed by almost everyone on this thread, but also by the overwhelming majority of voters.

Then again, its your dime and your dance floor. Do what you want with it.

[OakParkSpartan]

Bye.

[MRS. NORTHSIDER]

Refinancing bonds is the lesser of two evils.  Doing nothing is the greater.

While I think that going to referendum is unnecessary and a waste of precious resources, it, too, is the lesser of two evils.  Doing nothing is greater.

It must be nice to be so sure of your righteous self and so eager to dismiss everyone who has a different view.  I actually admire the audacity.

[OakParkSpartan]

I find it interesting in a sad way that everyone seems set against preschool, rather than saying "this has been shown to be beneficial, let's figure out how to make it happen".

Says a lot.

[berwynguy]

IMO, debating topics on BTF has become a lost cause, but for whatever it's worth, I am in favor of the preschool idea.  Mr. Pauly has to play nice Mr. PC because he is the head of DACEE, but I don't.  With that said, most breeders around here leave a lot to be desired in the parenting dept. which is one of the main reasons we have the problems that we do.  If preschool was mandated then the kids would have a better chance of just getting up to par, not ahead, which is sad in itself.  And for what ever it's worth again, this is coming from the father of a Berwyn D100 preschool age son.  Many of the debaters in this topic don't even have any kids at all.