Friday, March 13, 2015

Extra, Extra! Read All About It! A Great Big Thank You to the Clarendon Courier for the Free Publicity: Blog is Front and Center At D181 Candidates' Debate

Thanks to "Blogger Fan" (March 12, 2015 at 11:09 PM) who last night sent us a link to the video of the D181 Candidates' Debate hosted by the Clarendon Hills Courier.  Here is the link so all our readers can watch the candidates in action:

http://new.livestream.com/ccsd181/events/3881701?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=145f0d80116165-0caa36786-1e114552-13c680-145f0d801173c7&acc_id=8457864&medium=email

Apparently we owe a big thank you to the hosts for not only plugging our parent blog, but also having 3 of the 6 questions focus on the blog.  Readers, what do you think?  Is this the best use of time for the candidates and attendees?  Ok, we can't lie - we love the publicity - but the attention should have been on the major issues our district is facing.

Since we know for a fact that none of the current board members or candidates are "the Bloggers," it strikes us as a bit odd that 1/2 of the questions they were asked focused on the blog. Why not ask a question about the upcoming teachers' contract negotiations, which will be one of the first and major tasks the new board will undertake, since the current contract will expire in 15 months?  Why not ask a question about each candidate's understanding of the tax levy process and what approach they will take in setting the next levy?  Why not ask each candidate to discuss the state of the district finances, which Turek described as currently having a "balanced budget," when in fact the last fiscal year (2013-2014) ended in a $1.28 million deficit (See 6/23/14 Amended Budget Report)?  All of these topics, would have been more relevant to the campaign issues.

But thank you, Clarendon Courier, for the free publicity.  We appreciate it.  And to our Readers, please share the link to the video by email, Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media, so the candidates (and the blog) will get more coverage!

*****

Comments we have received so far about the debate:

A Blogger Fan said...
Here's a link to the Clarendon Courier's hosted D181 Candidates' debate held tonight at CHMS. The Bloggers may want to watch it since you got a lot of free publicity.....

http://new.livestream.com/ccsd181/events/3881701?origin=event_published&mixpanel_id=145f0d80116165-0caa36786-1e114552-13c680-145f0d801173c7&acc_id=8457864&medium=email
Joan Fitzgerald Clopton said...
In regard to the Clarendon Courier debate in CH, I found it extremely sad and disappointing that TWO questions (and one follow up) were in regard to this blog....the scenario played out as if in the McCarthy era of GOTCHA in trying to incriminate "certain" candidates if they had read or posted here. Obvious audience members applauded in this Gotcha game....that failed miserably as 4 of the 6 candidates agreed that transparency and the First Amendment are vital to our community. For anyone who grew up in Hinsdale....with its obvious cliques and country clubs should know, everyone has an opinion here in America and blogging is another channel that perhaps busy, educated parents can use to share information, data and experience, much like people do at say a coffee get together or a tennis match. As a very full time educated parent myself, I am grateful that we have candidates (Burns, Czerwiec, Giltner and Gray) who believe in free speech and an open forum, as many other forums operate outside of this blog as well. Next time, let's hope any media outlet would focus on queries and questions that were much more substantive in nature, perhaps both quantitative and qualitative, in reference to the education of children, which should be the focus. Hinsdale and D181 obtains its often negative reputation from this lack of depth in the real issues. I come from a long line of Chicagoans and although Hinsdale has a solid reputation for great schools, it is very sad that this topic would take up so much time at a school board candidate's debate. Are some candidates afraid to discuss the real issues ? This is my first post and it is not anonymous.
Anonymous said...
I couldn't agree more with Ms Clopton. Three of the seven questions posed to the candidates were about this blog. Obviously I am a reader and value the forum, but to address the issue in the way that it was was a complete waste of everyone's time - candidates and audience members - and an insult to those who attended the debate in an effort to educate themselves about the candidates and the issues.

I also could not help but wonder if there was some sort of agenda or unknown reason why this happened. The questions for the debate were supposedly submitted by readers of the Courier. If that is true, I am surprised and disappointed that those readers care so much about gossip and so little about the serious and important issues facing our district. The whole experience was hypocritical at best and a downright sneaky at worst. The Courier showed its true colors as a gossip magazine last night and made a mockery of the election process. It also lost this reader. Advertisers should think twice about advertising in such a forum. Respectfully submitted anonymously. Because this is the United States and I can. Don't like it, don't read it.
Anonymous said...
Listened to the LiveStream last night and I agree with Joan. What kept going through my head was: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" http://www.ushistory.org/us/53a.asp

One question would have been tolerable. 3 was ridiculous.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

The blog discussion starts at 1:05 for those who want to listen to it quickly. But please make time to listen to the whole debate (and also that of The Hinsdalean last week which was far more substantive) to learn more about who you should be voting for. The choices are obvious!

jay_wick said...

As I have repeatedly said, when there are facts that can be tied to actual BoardDocs that show the incumbent to be incorrect it is proper to point out these problems.

That folks "vetted" someone who so obviously plays fast and loose with the facts is what motivated me to run. Another four years who lacks an understanding of what it means to keep the district on a sound fiscal path is absolutely the wrong person to have during a potential building program running into the tens of millions of dollars.

Anonymous said...

I think the blog is at its best when it deals in factual reporting and in providing links to documents and data sources that readers can view themselves. In this capacity, it serves to educate the public in a constructive way. I believe that what is so upsetting about the blog is the fact that some comments are very personal and at times nasty. Even Ms. Gray pointed out that it felt like a violation of privacy to have her application for the Learning Committee posted online. It also seems that when someone posts an opposing viewpoint, they get ripped apart by commentors. If contributors could find a way to disagree more respectfully, without being so disagreeable, I think this would be less controversial in the community.

Anonymous said...

What struck me at the Clarendon Hills debate was how rude and disrespectful the Turek and McCurry supporters were. At a certain point during the debate, the audience was asked to refrain from applause after each candidate answered. The Turek and McCurry camp loudly clapped and cheered anyway. Multiple times. Yet Mike Ellis of the Courier didn't say a word to them. Later on, however, Mr. Ellis did choose to chastise the first people people who decided to follow suit and clap for another candidate. What kind of a joke debate was this? Why did the rules and restrictions only apply to certain people in the audience, not all? The irony was that McCurry and Turek claim to stand for respectfulness, fairness, and "balance".

And if the "continuity" that Turek keeps referring to is the continuation of him behaving like a bumbling tyrant who is unaware that he changes his stance on issues during every debate (usually during the same debate, too), I will vote for change and fiscal responsibility by voting for Burns, Czerwiec, Giltner, and Gray.

I do have to applaud the woman in red last night who gave Turek a taste of his own disrespect last night. It was probably one of the many parents whose e-mails or public comments he has never responded to.
Well done. When will Turek and McCurry realize that although you can fool some of the people some of the time (especially those who never go to meetings), you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Respectfully,
The Civility Police

Anonymous said...

Not sure why Mrs. Gray would be upset by her resume. Not that many people graduate from Cornell for undergrad, and Northwestern Law!

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more, 11:59. There is a lot of great and helpful information on this blog and sometimes that gets lost in the nastiness. In addition to making it difficult to get to the facts, the nastiness sometimes offends readers, is off putting and prevents widespread acceptance of the valid issues that need to be discussed community-wide. The election is a chance to start fresh, commenters, let's try to do the same by sticking to the facts in a respectful way, regardless of how BOE members behave or actions the administration takes.

Susan Blumberg-Kason said...

I'm grateful the blog shared the video so those of us who couldn't be there can now view it.

As for the questions at the debate regarding the blog, I think that was a poor use of time, as Mr Giltner expressed. But give me a break about this censorship issue. When I interviewed with the caucus to run for the D181 board, one of the first questions they asked was whether I could take public crticism. I hope the same question is asked of our administrators when they interview for this district. If you can't take it, please do not go into a profession that puts you in the public spotlight and that is scrutinized by diverse groups (parents, teachers, a board, etc.). I've written about this before on the blog, but go to Reddit and type in my name, or go to Amazon and do the same thing. You'll find whole threads on Reddit devoted to disparaging me, my family, my book, and my profession. The same goes for my 1- and 2-star Amazon reviews. I'm not even compensated with a salary and in fact haven't broken even with what I put into my book project. But news alert: public criticism comes with the territory. It's called life.

Board members and administrators are here for us, the community. Remember that on April 7.

Anonymous said...

In listening to last night's debate questions about the blog, it was obvious that Amy McCurry did not understand the question that asked if she thought certain types of speech should be restricted. If she could not understand that question, how is she going to understand complicated issues and board documents? One of the things that this country was founded on was Freedom of Speech.

Anonymous said...

Yes, 1:15/11:59, the way the McCurry and Turek supporters behaved yesterday was rude. That's a fact. I could barely hear because of the "coughing" and the loud talking from the people behind me that somehow was only audible when any of the other 4 candidates were speaking.

Everything that The Civilty Police referred to actually happened last night because I was there. You can listen to the audio if you weren't there or don't believe it. They were all nasty and rude behaviors and extremely off putting.

I completley agree with you, but I am not sure why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious lack of respectful behavior that not only occured last night, but occurs at board meetings and district meetings on a regular basis from those folks that you blindly support. So what about if administrators are rude to board members? Since you claim these 2 groups of people are equally privileged and superior to the rest of us plebians, is it OK if they are just nasty to each other? In your opinion, which group deserves more respect, the board or the paid administrators? I cannot believe that you are telling us to never say the truth about board members or administrators. Very hypocritical and unethical, not to mention stupid. Let's not forget that we have become nasty because we are tired of the disrespectful and unethical way many board members and administrators have treated us, and especially our children these last few years. Since our polite meetings, emails, and public rerquests have been ignored so often, parents have been forced to become a bit more forceful.

When rude behavior or lies are clearly evidenced by a board member or administrator, only an idiot would not acknowledge it! Why on earth do you think that board members or administrators are off limits from the truth? That they are somehow untouchable? Are you a board member or administrator?

If anything, publicly elected board members and government sponsored administrators hold a higher duty to behave in an honest, fair way than anyone else. I am actually blown away by the ignorance of your revelation and find it only typical of certain candidates and a few board members. That is exaclty why this blog exists. So people who don't go to meetings, are educationally uninformed, or are not aware of issues can discuss the facts, and decide which candidates, administrators, and board members truly deserve our respect. Only believing what your handful of friends say does not make it is a fact or describe the whole story.

So, while I am sure you will call my comments nasty and I will call your comments ignorant, hypocritical, and stupid, the only difference is while I welcome your point of view, you are doing everything in your power to deny me mine. To me and most people, that is what is actually off-putting.

Anonymous said...

I have now watched last night's debate and I have a question. Turek suggests that lies have been told on the blog. Can anyone point out anything that isn't true? Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

2:43, yes, I would certainly call your comments nasty. As the 11:59 poster, I in no way said I thought it was okay for administrators or board members to behave disrespectfully towards the community, nor that they were privileged or superior. On the contrary, poor behavior is unacceptable across the board. You are completely out of line with your comments, implying that either I or the 1:15 poster in any way support such negative behavior. On the other hand, you called us hypocritical, unethical, stupid and idiots. This is exactly the behavior that turns people off from the blog and detracts from the important messages that some posters are trying to share. I don't know why you are so angry, but your vitriolic verbage is inappropriate, and in no way represents disagreeing without being disagreeable. That's on you - don't try to blame others for your inablity to be civil.

Anonymous said...

2:43 you need to go back and read the comments you are critisizing more carefully. You are way off base and are giving creedance to the critics of this blog. All the two earlier posters you refer to are saying is that, regardless of the behavior of others, lets give civility a try and present factual information. Nothing more and certainly nothing close to what you are saying. Wow. 2:43 you may think you are part of the solution but you are most definitely part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

Dear 2:59,

Here is a direct quote from 1:15, "The election is a chnace to start fresh, commenters, let's try to do the same by sticking to the facts in a respectful way, REGARDLESS of how BOE members have or actions the administration takes."

Yes I am nasty. But I would rather be nasty than a liar. When our schools, community, and children suffer because of the poor actions and inactions of the board and the administration, it is imperative that they stop their poor behavior.

Elm Parent said...

Does anyone else who watched the debate think that Ms. McCurry was given an advantage -- i.e. received the questions in advance. I have watched the video and it seems like she was reading answers to all of the questions. Other candidates had notes they occasionally referred to, but her answers were pretty much prepared statements. Hmmh? Seems unusual, especially since the everyone in town knows her husband runs a column in the Courier and some people think he is an investor (although I admit, I'm not sure if the investor part is fact). But anyone who googles the Courier does get hits for his column called "Talk of the Town." Maybe that explains why the blog got so much attention, but not a single question was asked at either this debate or last week's about her conflict of interest. Nor did she mention it herself at either debate, and while she clearly thinks it doesn't matter, the community has a right to make informed decisions on the candidates' backgrounds, experiences and conflicts before we vote on April 7.

Anonymous said...

Hey -- we like the idea of people who don't care for this blog starting their own. They will quickly realize that it takes a lot of time to stay current with the issues. Maybe it will force them to get educated. If they start a blog, though, that blog should be backed up with references to board docs, quotes from people, etc., just like this blog does. I applaud the parents who are running this blog, because they are not just spitting out venomous posts. They back up what they say and I for one, totally agree with the observation made by one candidate that the bloggers' descriptions of what happen at BOE meetings are more accurate that what the administrative spin machine spits out. Just listen to some meetings and compare the D181 newsletters and board meeting summaries to the bloggers' posts. Then you too will lose trust in the administration.

Anonymous said...

I believe 3:41 has a point. She was reading the answers. But her respoonse to the answer that was thrown in at the last minute does not sound prepared at all.

Anonymous said...

Do we have to choose between being nasty or a liar? How about neither.

Anonymous said...

I think everyone should take a deep breath and take a 24 hour break. I think everyone is more similar than different. Let's all have a time out.

Anonymous said...

Elm Parent at 3:33pm - I believe you are right that Amy McCurry was given an advantage, provided with the questions beforehand and was reading from a script.

I strongly believe in journalistic objectivity and I think the Courier really stepped over the line. Mr. Ellis of the Courier should be ashamed. Mike McCurry has a column in the paper and is an advertiser. Huge conflict of interest that played out in front of all of us last night.

The questions about the blog were completely irrelevant and a huge waste of time. We live in the USA and it's called Freedom of Speech.

I would have preferred to hear about the substantive issues facing our district and the candidates' perspectives on those issues. Kudos to Mr. Giltner for bringing up that he would have liked to have focused on those issues rather than the blog.

The Hinsdalean debate was much more professional and thank goodness for that given the circus act of last night!

CHMS Parent

Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more with Elm Parent. It was the first thing I noticed when I was watching Amy McCurry answer questions. She spent an awful lot of time reading the answers to her questions.

She even read most of her opening statement. It wasn't just looking at points. She was reading which probably means someone wrote it for her.

Anonymous said...

I think it would be very interesting to see all of the questions that the community submitted to Mike Ellis/The Courier. Too bad that information can't be FOIA'd. Surely the people who comprise our communities, Clarendon Hills and Hinsdale, wanted answers to more important questions than whether or not a candidate had posted something on a blog. The whole thing was stupid. Not to beat a dead horse, which Mike Ellis did over and over last night....it's America and I, like every other citizen of this country, have the right to say whatever I want about whomever I want. Free speech. And as for administrators leaving because of a blog? Please! Then don’t support ridiculous liberal social justice programs that have destroyed student’s self esteem and stand to wreck the stellar reputation of our schools which is the reason people move here in the first place. But just maybe some administrators have left because they’re being forced to put in programs that go against what they believe in as educators? Truth? Maybe the wrong people are leaving our district but don’t blame the parents Mr Turek. Blame yourself! You have supported Schneider for going on 3 years now. You have done nothing to help the now 5th graders!!!!

The blog did get a nice shout out.....there are many intelligent parents who post on here. And we certainly know what we're talking about unlike a couple of the candidates sitting on the panel last night. I've not been a fan of the Hinsdalean, but I will say that the debate it sponsored was conducted very professionally with meaningful questions that gave insight into where the candidates stood on important issues facing the district. The Courier debate was amateur.

Support Burns, Czerwiec, Giltner, and Gray on April 7th!!

Signed
ANONYMOUS....BECAUSE I CAN!!!!!

Mike Ellis said...

After briefly reviewing some of these comments, first of all, I want to say that I respect everyone's opinion, and that I don't support any restriction of speech. I respect everyone on this blog's passion for their children's education.

Here's the honest truth about the blog questions: originally, I intended to compress all of the questions about the blog into one. But I wasn't sure the candidates would be able to address them in 2 minutes, so I broke it up into 2 compound questions. In hindsight, that was probably mistake, and it would have been better to have only one question about the blog.

I'd like to specifically address 3 comments.

First, none of the candidates received our questions in advance. You can ask any of them, including Amy McCurry. We were still receiving them on the day of the forum.

Secondly, one comment said I showed favoritism to Marty Turek by not chastising the audience after he spoke, but asking the audience to be quiet after Jennifer Burns's comment. This was a mistake on my part. After the first question, I asked the audience to hold their applause until the last speaker. I should have chastised the audience after Turek spoke, but simply forgot to. I'm not a professional moderator and was nervous at times. It was not my intent to seem unfair. I apologize to Ms. Burns's supporters for that mistake.

Third, as far as advertising support goes, I'll admit that Mike McCurry is a prominent advertiser in our publication. But of all the candidates in the D181 election, the Hinsdale Caucus slate is the only one that has committed to any advertising in our publication as of right now. I actually had a question about Amy McCurry's "conflict of interest" before she resigned, but I decided not to ask it to her specifically, because 1) I told all the candidates beforehand that we would favor general questions over personal ones, per one candidate's concern that anyone would be unfairly "attacked" or "favored," and 2) I didn't want anyone to think I was giving Amy McCurry an unfair platform for the above-cited advertising reason.

When I got questions about the blog, I knew I was going to take some flak here when I asked them, and that's okay. I work 80 hour weeks to produce a quality community product, and our residents know this.

Thank you,

Mike Ellis
Editor & Publisher
The Clarendon Courier
(630)-244-8037

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ellis, have you ever posted on the d181 blog??? Just yes or no!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike Ellis said...

Yes, that was my first post.

I do have one quick question on that topic too. Why didn't anyone accuse me of favoritism towards Leslie Gray over Jennifer Burns, when I told Jennifer just "yes" or "no," and allowed Leslie to finish her full thought?

This was a mistake on my part too. I should have been more consistent, but I was concerned about sounding rude.

Mike Ellis
Editor & Publisher
The Clarendon Courier
(630)-244-8037

Anonymous said...

Mr Ellis: In addition to being a prominent advertiser in your paper, hasn't Mr. McCurry also been a bi-weekly columnist in it for several years?

There is nothing wrong with Mr. McCurry's association with the paper, however, this relationship and connection should have been disclosed by you at the debate. Same with Mrs. McCurry's employment with D181 and her lack of disclosure there. Voters should be given this type of information and then they, on their own, are able to decide what they think about it.

Mike Ellis said...

I just wanted to say one more thing that I forgot to mention in my first post: I love this community more than any of you can imagine.

I grew up in unincorporated Clarendon Hills/Willowbrook, and we didn't really have a sense of community. But after attending Hinsdale Central and working for 8 years at Hinsdale Golf Club, I grew to love this community for its great people that care about each other. I love Hinsdale; I love Clarendon Hills. They're the two best communities in the Western Suburbs. That's why I live and work in and around Clarendon Hills. It's not money that makes this community special; it's the people and the environment. I don't have any children, and I live south of 55th Street, so even if I did, they would attend District 60, not 181. But I still care a great deal about D181, because it's an essential ingredient in what makes our community a special place.

We're all neighbors, and we're all in this together. I want to hear your views and opinions. That's why I put my phone number in the signature.

Hopefully, all of this chatter will bring more people out to the polls on April 7, when 4 of the 6 candidates will be elected. I don't believe in endorsing candidates (I wrote several paragraphs about this in my letter in the last Courier), so I encourage everyone to vote for whichever 4 candidates they think will best represent them on the board.

Thank you,

Mike Ellis
Editor & Publisher
The Clarendon Courier
(630)-244-8037
mike.ellis.0512@gmail.com

Mike Ellis said...

1:29, that's a good point. I didn't think to do that. We just celebrated our first anniversary, and Mike McCurry has contributed as a bi-weekly columnist since the beginning.

But while the association is relevant, I know you guys probably don't believe me when I say this, but I was very cognizant of not showing favoritism. I made some mistakes, but those were unintentional. I know you couldn't see me off-camera, but for those who were there, they can testify that I spent most of the time looking at the clock for our 2-minute limit. I actually allowed an additional 30 seconds for everyone. 2 questions about the blog was too many. Maybe we shouldn't have had 2 questions relating to Learning For All/Advanced Learning either. But favoritism isn't my style in the political arena. I have a policy of not endorsing candidates.

Like I mentioned in the first post, I didn't want to ask Amy McCurry a specific question, because one of the other candidates (not Amy) expressed concern about personal questions before the forum. I told the candidates we reserved the right to ask personal questions, but that general ones would be favored.

Thank you,

Mike Ellis
Editor & Publisher
The Clarendon Courier
(630)-244-8037
mike.ellis.0512@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

I just checked - the debate video has been watched 346 times! Unheard of in d181!

Anonymous said...

As a response to Mike Ellis why nobody accused him of favoritism to Leslie Gray over Jennifer Burns for letting her finish her 'yes' answer to the question "Has she ever posted to the blog". I think it is obvious. it is because a yes answer is meaningless. What is the point of knowing whether or not someone posted to the blog? There is an implication that posting in itself is something that brings information. It does not. If you had asked what have they posted to the blog, what were the ideas, what was the purpose, that could be potentially useful. But a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not you have posted to the blog is a waste of time, even if it is a one word answer (and in this case because it is a one word answer).