#3: Mr. Turek failed to oppose Dr. White's promotion of Kurt Schneider into the position of SOLE Assistant Superintendent of Learning, on July 8, 2014 (or at any meeting since then). (Link to 7/8/14 Superintendent's report.) Schneider is now responsible for both the curriculum and special education departments. In our opinion, D181's curriculum chaos is the direct result of the lack of true leadership in the Department of Learning and Mr. Turek's support of poor leadership decisions evidences his inability to act in the best interests of D181's students. We would be remiss in failing to point out that one reason Mr. Turek failed to publicly oppose Dr. White's critical organizational change in the Learning Department was because he did not even attend the 7/8/14 board meeting, the only board meeting scheduled last July.
Reason #1: Four years ago the Hinsdale Caucus got it right when they did not endorse Mr. Turek.
Reason #2: As the board president for the last 2 years, Mr. Turek's job has been to preside over the board meetings, however, his actual authority during said meetings is no greater than the other six board members. (Board Policy 2:110.) Rather than facilitate discussions during the meetings, listen to and take his fellow board members' opinions on issues into consideration, he has attacked them and tried to shut them down. Case in point, suggesting during the 12/9/13 board meeting that well respected Board Member Brendan Heneghan was going down a "rat hole" when he suggested there should be a curriculum committee similar to the finance committee. Less than one year later, a curriculum committee called the Learning Committee has been formed. We guess Mr. Turek got it wrong when he called Mr. Heneghan out.
I wonder how many people that are delegates to any of the Caucus nominating committees (apparently now the only valid channel for alternate nominations...) would be so appalled by the shear gaps in attendance that Turek has exhibited as to offer another candidate...
Such a shame that the caucus was not more informed.
I just don't get it. Didn't the D181 caucus committee conduct any due diligence outside of interviewing Mr. Turek?
The caucus works very hard to vet candidates in a long, time-consuming process. If you have issues with the process, join the caucus in two years and see for yourself.
Ms.Blumberg-Kason: pray tell what the caucus did to properly vet Mr. Turek as a candidate to endorse over a highly qualified person such as yourself?
7:51: Will you vote for Mr. Turek? And if so, why?
I wasn't a highly qualified candidate. That's why I have the utmost faith in the caucus. And as my late father taught me, voting is a private matter.
Susan-I don't know you well, but I have had a few conversations with you at various times. I can unequivocally say that you are indeed qualified to sit on D181's board of education!
Blog, blog blog! Quit complaining about the caucus process after the fact and get involved.
10:21: Sorry you don't like what we are "opining" on. We are involved. We present the community with information that administration and some board members would prefer to bury or ignore. We promote transparency and debate on the issues. And yes, we call out a process that may have worked years ago, but now SHOULD be questioned, especially if there were not fourteen D181 delegates on the D181 Caucus Committee. You say get involved. We have been. How do you know if any of us tried but didn't get selected for the D181 caucus committee? How do you know that we wouldn't have come to a second delegate selection meeting if the caucus had made ANY effort to acknowledge the 6 empty delegate spots and then try and fill them? We have scoured the press to see if any such meeting was ever called. We found no indication that it was. Certainly there was nothing on the caucus website. Fixing the caucus, or dissolving it, for future elections is not the pressing issue, however. Now the issue is who they endorsed. The community has a right to decide who to vote for and do it with more information than a simple "caucus endorsed" label. We will continue to provide the community with reasons why individual voters should not vote to reelect Mr. Turek. That is how we will be involved. Then each voter can choose to vote for or against him. It is everyone's right.
Bloggers: We are with you! 10:21 is probably a defensive caucus delegate. Thank you bloggers for all of the information you are giving the community. It is appreciated.
I agree with the blog! We ARE involved. We have already complained to teachers, principals, administrators and the board, but to absolute disregard. Just because they ignore us and deny the existence of blaring problems does not mean that we are not right! Whoever wrote to stop complaining is probably clueless about issues in education, or hasn't had children in the district in a while. However, your property values will start to suffer if our children's educations are sub par. If you want to continue to be clueless and uninformed, by all means, do so. But don't criticize the bloggers who are taking unpaid time out of their lives to promote transparency in 181.
At some level,efforts to merely publicize the shortcomings of charlatans that may have been able to sweet talk their way to Caucus endorsement are futile.
So long as any candidate legally on the ballot gets more votes than their opponents they WILL be elected. Several unendorsed candidates have won spots on the BOE in recent elections, the current titular head of the BOE is just one such example. Though certain tactics they employed (abusing email lists of other organizations, denigrating the Caucus process, leveraging the clueless votes of established family connections) are distasteful, the fact is SUCH THINGS ARE EFFECTIVE.
Further, some aspects of past campaigns should be illustrative of what can be effective winning strategies. The "angry tax payer" voter is a reliable vein of fury that should absolutely be opposed to any BOE incumbents that demonstrably have SPENT MORE AND GOTTEN LESS than in previous years.
Fact is, the Caucus itself is not nearly as effective as it once was in even reaching out to well qualified potential candidates. In years past the various nominating committees would make calls to former candidates based on resumes on file from previous cycles, review minutes of the BOE (which are conveniently archived as podcasts, due largely to the efforts of champions of honesty and transparency as exemplified by the hosts of this blog) for folks that have spoken about important issues and look for those that have volunteered letters or time on committees for improvements.
The people that are derelict are, in fact, the sheltered and ineffective Caucus delegates that should be ashamed of crafting a slate headed by such an obviously unfit incumbent.
It should be the mission of all residents of the district that care about the future of their property values, the success of all children in our communities and even the reputation of our elected bodies as fair and trustworthy institutions, to unseat the current titular head of the BOE.
Post a Comment