The Hinsdalean's Endorsements Draw Criticism from Our Readers
The Hinsdalean has published its endorsements of the D181 candidates, and our readers aren't happy. Neither are we, but we aren't going to give that newspaper any credibility by actually publishing who they picked or their naive and ignorant reasons why. Instead, we are going to post the comments we have received so far and provide this free standing post for anyone else who wants to SOUND OFF!
We will be publishing our endorsements in the next week, so stay tuned.
COMMENTS RECEIVED SO FAR:
I am extremely disappointed in the Hinsdalean. Leslie Gray, above all the other candidates, deserved its endorsement. She is the most qualified of the six candidates which was plainly obvious from both the Hinsdalean and Clarendon Courier's debates.
I believe they got it right by endorsing Jennifer Burns and Richard Giltner.
However, the Hinsdalean certainly showed that Mike McCurry's advertising dollars speak louder than strong qualifications by endorsing Amy McCurry who decided to run over a champagne dinner and couldn't answer a question at the debates without reading from a script.
I can't believe Gray wasn't endorsed and McCurry was. Between the conflict of interest and lack of knowledge and depth that was apparent in both debates and in the impromptu questions asked by the Hinsdalean for publicaton, it is obvious that Ms McCurry is nowhere near qualified to hold this position. "I look forward to learning about the levy process" is just one glaring example." My guess is that The Hinsdalean didn't like the fact that Ms Gray went strongly on the record in opposition to some aspects of the Learning For All plan. In doing so, it missed an opportunity to endorse needed diversity on the Board about this plan. By endorsing Turek and McCurry, both huge supporters of the plan, we are left with only Giltner and Burns to hopefully bring an objective perspective about this plan if they win. Hopefully the community will see this error and necessity more clearly than The Hinsdalean did. Learning For All has been a colossal failure by almost all accounts. More of the same rubber stamping of this major initiative is not what we need at the BOE level. Objectivity and a strong command of facts and details is.
Well if there was any doubt of bias, it is all clear now. Of course the Hinsdalean can give their opinion (they own it) which they really shouldn't be. I agree with Mr. Ellis of the CH courier, it's not their job. Having attended the hinsdalean debate I can say hands down, Mr. Czerwiec was the most articulate and knowledgeable candidate. He won the debate as far as I would tell and no I do not know Mr. Czerwiec. What was also clear was that Ms. Mccurry had no knowledge of the tax levy and district budgeting process. SO for her to be endorsed over someone who clearly understands the issues is mind boggling. Is it better to have someone who understands school finances, the levy and who by the way was a classroom teacher or someone who supports a plan that has worked well for her kids and was a special ed teacher (deals with a smaller number of students)? Aren't we all lifelong learners? Why is it that it is implied that educators are the only lifelong learners? We are all constantly having to learn new things at the workplace. I would like them to see the rigorous board exams and license exams various professionals have to take to remain certified. I also felt that Mr. Turek lacked knowledge of the tax levy and has shown no evidence of holding anyone accountable including himself.
I'm just curious why the Hinsdale had a picture (and name) of Planson instead of Gray. Plans is running for the 86 board, not 181. Was this intentional, or just a mistake, like that one D86 news article on Facebook that accidentally had the axe through a windshield?
Yvonne Mayer, Current Taxpayer, Former D181 Parent and Board Member said...
I am speechless. This is Yvonne Mayer, and I am once again posting using my name. I woke up this morning and checked my front entrance to see if the Hinsdalean had delivered their newspaper to Burr Ridge residents. They had not. Yesterday, the posted on their Facebook Page that today's run would be their largest circulation ever and that they were delivering to all homes in Clarendon Hills, not just Hinsdale. I posted a comment asking them to also deliver to all D181 homes in Burr Ridge and Willowbrook, but they never posted a response. I guess they don't care enough about all of the D181 residents, just those in Hinsdale (as they should since it is, after all, called The Hinsdalean) and now the residents in Clarendon Hills. So I ponder the following questions: 1. Why just add Clarendon Hills to their free distribution list? 2. Could it be because they are endorsing two candidates who live in Clarendon Hills? 3. How many homes are in Clarendon Hills -- a couple thousand? 4. Why would a Hinsdale based paper, deliver for FREE, a paper to Clarendon HIlls? It obviously isn't FREE for the paper to run hard copies for all of these homes? 5. Why would the Hinsdalean take money out of their profit margin to run hard copies for all of the Clarendon Hills residents? 6. Could it possibly be that someone is funding these extra copies, and if so, who is? 7. If the Hinsdalean is paying for these extra copies, why are they not running copies for all of D181's residents? Could it be that they have been pressured in some way by some of their advertisers to deliver copies this week to Clarendon HIlls? If so, who are these advertisers (or advertiser)?
Many questions to ponder. Of course, no answers will be given.
As for the Hinsdalean's endorsement of Turek, I am completely disgusted. Consistency? Good leadership in the last two years? Praising him for the teacher's contract? So disappointing that the Hinsdalean has overlooked the fact that Turek didn't lead the negotiations. Vorobiev and Clarin did. He just voted. So disappointing that the Hinsdalean overlooked the list by the bloggers of 22 reasons, all based in fact and actions/statements made by Turek, that show clearly that he has not been an effective board member to our children and taxpayers, but just to the administration.
Pam Lannom has no children in D181. For her to suggest that it is important for the Learning for All "process" to continue to roll out is irresponsible journalism! It was not a "process" when I voted for it. It was a plan, and I only voted yes because it was going to pass since the majority of the board wanted to rubber stamp what the administration wanted, but in order to hold the administration accountable I and Brendan Heneghan voted yes, something Turek personally promised me he would make sure would happen. Three years later, there has been no accountability. No data to prove that the plan has worked. And yet Turek "loves the plan" as he has repeatedly stated during the debates and board meetings.
It is truly disturbing that the Hinsdalean has reached the conclusion that the L4A plan should continue, a conclusion that will only hurt our children, should Turek get reelected.
On April 7th, please vote for 4 candidates who have recognized the deficiencies that exist in the district's administration and the L4A program and will not just roll over and pretend that all is rosy. These 4 candidates will not just rubber stamp the plan/process continued roll-out, but will demand data and demand accountability. That is NOT MICROMANAGEMENT, no matter how much the Hinsdalean likes to use that word.
On April 7th, vote for Burns, Czerwiec, Giltner and Gray!
Yvonne Mayer, Current Taxpayer, Former D181 Parent and Board Member said...
Oh yeah, and Turek didn't care at all that I was physically assaulted by a fellow board member. That is the icing on the cake. He not only disrespected me as a fellow board member, but as a woman, and his refusal to take a public stand on any type of physical abuse should be reason enough not to vote for him. He laughed at the Clarendon Courier debate when he referenced the blogger's list of reasons not to vote for him, but none of the reasons, especially that one are funny.
Parent Who has Lost Respect for the Hisndalean said...
It is clear as day that the Hinsdalean sold out to the highest bidder. They will whine and cry that "it ain't so" but do they really think the community is that stupid to not see this political gaming for what it really is.
Clear as day that McCurry's husband is a prominent advertiser. Doesn't each full page ad he runs cost just under $1000? If he runs one full paid ad each week, that is $52,000 per year. No way can the Hinsdalean afford to lose his advertising or that of other realtors who might support his wife running for the BOE. The Hinsdalean will claim, "no way, no way, journalistic integrity rules the day," but I'm not buying it and neither are other intelligent D181 community members.
If Ms. McCurry had actually given substantive, knowledgeable, fiscally responsible answers to the questions she was asked during the Hinsdalean vetting process and during the debates, then maybe, just maybe, their endorsement would make sense. But anyone closely reading all available material and who has watched both debates knows full well that she is the least prepared of all six candidates to serve our children well. Nice lady, maybe. But nice won't help our kids.
I have respected Ms. Lannom since she was just a reporter in a different era of community newspapers.
It is silly to attack the ethics of The Hinsdalean, the simple fact is they just don't have the resources to cover the schools in the depth necessary.
The fact is every member of the current BOE, save its titular head, have been critical of L4A. The administration has morphed this thing so many times that it is simply unrecognizable. It is clearly NOT serving all the learners and the evidence of that is not just here on this forum but in the FACT that where once ALL of district schools where on the on the Honor Roll from the Illinois State Board of Education now just ONE is on that list -- The Lane VS. ISBE Honor Roll Academic Excellence...
As I have encountered anyone that truly expresses an interest in why the BOE needs change I have tried to state the case for fiscal restraint in addressing the issues facing our schools, accountability for the direction of the schools, renewed focus on the classrooms not bloated administrative staff (that apparently cannot handle the tasks they were hired to perform...) and, above all, equal access to high quality schools. If folks can honestly say they believe the candidates supported by The Hinsdalean stand for these things I am deeply worried about the future...