Monday, May 23, 2016

HMS "Next Steps" Survey Results Are Clear that the Administration, BOE and Facilities Committee Have Much Work To do Before Choosing A New Referendum Date

As the school year winds down, we will be writing our final posts before signing off -- permanently. When the 2015-2016 school year ends, we -- the bloggers  -- will have officially graduated all of our children from D181 and have decided that now is the right time to end our blog.  Our hope is that current and future parents will continue to closely monitor what is happening in D181 and, if necessary, start their own blog that will continue to shine a light of transparency on the good and the bad in the district. We will elaborate further on June 9, when we will be publishing our final post, but today and later this week, we are going to publish 2 important posts.

This first one addresses the HMS Referendum Next Steps Survey Results.  Later this week, the second post will address Curriculum Issues that were discussed at last week's Learning Committee Meeting and will be discussed at tonight's BOE meeting.

At tonight's BOE meeting, the HMS "Next Steps" Survey results are on the agenda for discussion.  As you all may recall, following the failure of the HMS Referendum, the BOE tasked the administration with conducting a survey, the purpose of which was to determine why the referendum failed and whether or not the BOE should approve going to referendum in the future on the HMS building.

We are not going to summarize the Survey Results that are going to be presented tonight to the BOE, since the administration and consulting firm it hired to conduct the Phone and Online Survey have done so.  The following links will take you to the reports and results and we encourage all of our readers to take the time to read ALL of the documents posted:

1.  Link to the Board Docs Agenda item on the Next Steps Survey
2.  Power Point Presentation for 5/23/16 BOE meeting
3.  Director of Communications 5/23/16 Summary Memo on the Results
4.  Patron Insights' Phone Survey Results -- Final Report
5. Online Survey Results with Redacted Comments

What we plan to do instead of summarizing the reports is to provide you with our take-aways (and of course, they are opinions which you may or may not agree with) and the next steps we hope the BOE will take, starting tonight.

First, our take-aways:

1.  It is clear that the main reason that the referendum failed was the exorbitant price tag.  It is also clear that in order for an HMS referendum to have any chance of succeeding, the price tag must be below $45 million.

2.  Too many bells and whistles were included in the first referendum, but in our opinion, even if you strip out the auditorium and running track, that will not lower the price tag by $20 million, so other changes are needed to the "winning Cordogan design."

3.  There is insufficient interest in rushing back to referendum in November 2016.  A majority of survey takers want the BOE to either take as much time as is needed to develop a design that the community will support or at a minimum wait until April 2017 at the earliest.  It will be interesting to see if the administration attempts to spin the responses to suggest that enough time exists between now and November to develop a design that the community can support and approve less than 6 months from now.  More importantly, it will be interesting to see if the BOE falls for this spin or immediately quashes any notion of going to referendum before April 2017.

4.  Based upon the survey results that show that a new design is in order, Cordogan must be terminated as the Architect on an new HMS project.   Unfortunately, for Cordogan, they have already had multiple swings at bat to design a new HMS that would cost $45 million.  As past blog posts have reported, their original design came close to a projected cost of $45 million, but a last minute bait and switch escalated the price tag by 66% to $73 million.  While they generated several project modifications that lowered the $73 to $65 million, $60 and $55 million, it was clear from the presentations to the BOE that the architecture firm was not supportive of their "cheaper" versions.  How then could anyone trust them now to develop a cheaper design that the community will support?

5.  We hope that all of you will take the 30 to 45 minutes it will take to read the COMMENTS submitted by the community members on the Online Survey:  Online Survey Results with Redacted Comments.  While the comments are consistent with the Survey results, we do want to take a moment to express our sadness and disappointment in community members who suggested that the only reason Clarendon Hills residents voted NO was because they didn't think they would benefit from the referendum.  There were many negative, personal comments against Clarendon Hills residents and we found them to be ignorant, hateful and destructive.  Thankfully, as the data shows, more than 50% of those who took the online survey actually live in the HMS feeder areas within D181 and the majority of the comments were from people who voted No AND gave very detailed and substantive reasons that have nothing to do with which side of town you live on to explain why the referendum failed.

Now, we would like to list our hopes for the next steps the BOE should take, starting tonight:

1.  Have a meaningful, substantive and constructive discussion tonight on the survey results.

2.  Decide that it will NOT go to referendum in November 2016.

3.  Terminate it's relationship with Cordogan Clark, the architecture firm.

4.  Agree that it will not take any further steps on an HMS referendum until it has finalized and approved its Facilities Master Plan -- just like D86 did as a first step.

5.  Set a timeline for finalizing and approving a Facilities Master Plan.

6.  Prioritize capital projects that are in the Facilities Master Plan and IF HMS remains the priority, THEN and only THEN....

7.  Set a timeline for deciding what the MAXIMUM dollar amount that should be spent on EITHER a new HMS OR a renovation of the existing HMS and conduct a formal RFP process to select a reputable architecture firm that must bid on the project as has been done with past successful D181 referenda.

8.  Once the winning firm is selected, then work with that firm to design a new or renovated HMS that will be within the budgeted amount.

9.  Go to referendum, but only after ensuring that a Committee of Community Members has been formed that will do the heavy labor needed to promote in a constructive, non-devisive manner the referendum question.

In our opinion, the earliest this can happen is April 2017, but since the administration has proven itself incapable of meeting ANY deadlines -- whether budgetary, facilities or curriculum -- we doubt that an April 2017 referendum can be achieved.  Instead, we hope the BOE takes as much time as is necessary to set a budget, select an architect and design a reasonable and fiscally responsible new or renovated Hinsdale Middle School.

We can't wait to listen to tonight's BOE meeting and see if ANYTHING AT ALL is decided on this important topic.

Stay tuned and SOUND OFF!




26 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is sad to see this blog end. It has been a community service that is, unfortunately, needed because of the complete abdication o critical thinking and coverage by the self-appointed paper of record for Hinsdale and the terrible communications and failure to answer questions by this administration. For years, there has not been any accountability in this district and the district continues to make misleading statements that are factually incorrect
The latest example of this duplicitous communication, and since the bloggers acknowledge they have a graduate, it affects you. 5th and 8th grade parents received an email this week from the director of assessments, saying that the science assessment will be given on paper, and not using any of the thousands of devices that the district has acquired. The email stated

This is a quick update concerning the Illinois Science Assessment (ISA). The District was prepared to administer the exam via computers; however, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) amended their technology specifications without advanced notice and were unable to provide us with a release date for the newly required software. After voicing our concerns with ISBE, they granted D181 permission to take the paper version of the ISA. We are currently awaiting the paper exams, which will be supplied next week. For this reason, we are extending the testing window through the end of May. If you have any questions, please contact your child's teacher or building principal.

The email suggests that the ISBE changed requirements at the last minute. I suggest that you read the documents released by the ISBE on this topic http://www.isbe.state.il.us/assessment/pdfs/isa/2016/ADS-specs.pdf This is the user guide that was released on March 25, 2016. It provides all of the specifications. Interestingly, the document makes clear that tablets (ipads) are not supported. The Mac system supported is 10.7 or better 10.7 was released in 2011 The district is on a 4 year cycle so each of the apple computers should be at least 10.7. So why can t the district just say that the test is not supported by ipads? Is that because it will ruin the falsehood that ipads are necessary for education? Does it destroy gh 1 to 1 argument? Or will the administration come back and say that we need ipads and computers for each student. 181 is one of the few districts that had to get an exeemption to take this assessment on paper. So much for all of our technology plans and one to one plns. Bloggers should look at this

Anonymous said...

so they are asking to approve guidelines, which if approved, will demand that a new school is needed..........tricky, tricky, tricky

Anonymous said...

And they are asking BOE to approve guidelines for more classroom space but BOE was told they don't need to approve guidelines for kids/class. How interesting. So self-serving and so WRONG!

The Parents said...

We completely agree with the last two comments. How hypocritical of the Administration to ask for BOE approval of only certain guidelines and not others. Only when it suits the administration. Perfect example of the manipulative tactics White and company continue to play.

And let's talk about games for a moment. Love how Dr. White introduced the NEW Assistant Superintendent of PPS tonight and announced she has started in D181. Really? What the heck happened to Dr. Schneider? Has he resigned? Was he fired? Is D181 paying for 2 Assistant Superintendents of PPS? There has been NO TRANSPARENCY on this. WHY NOT?

Anonymous said...

Thank you Bloggers for trying to speak the truth and shedding a light on the manipulative practices by the board of education and our administration, neither of whom can be trusted. As a parent, I will miss the updates you have provided because I can't depend on school communication to tell me the truth. Quite the contrary. I have to read between the lines, which is something I didn't have to do when I read this blog.
I'm very concerned about the state of 181, and I hope some members of the community who truly care about the district step up and decide to run for the school board next year because the current board members need to go. They are now acting as cronies and not considering the best interest of our kids. They are clearly more concerned about a new HMS than dismal test scores, and we have a superintendent who states he is not pleased with the math scores, and then focuses most of his time and attention to pushing for another referendum. This cast of characters has to go, all of them.

The Parents said...

12:07: We agree that new blood is needed on the BOE, but with all due respect, there are 2 board members -- Gray and Giltner -- who seem to want to do what's right for D181 on the HMS issue. We listened to the meeting tonight and were disgusted by the pushback they received during the metrics discussion from Clarin and Garg. It also seemed rather interesting that three of the board members left the meeting before it ended. Were they throwing a temper tantrum when their precious metrics were not approved? Kudos to Gray and Giltner for raising their questions and concerns on the metrics. We'd love to see the mysterious letter from a local architect that they kept referring to in which he/she questioned the proposed metrics. Maybe they can ask for it to be posted on Board docs? One final note -- Gray is right when she says the board members are the fiduciaries of our tax dollars. We elected the board members. We didn't elect the community members or teachers or administrators who serve on the facilities committee -- the so-called experts -- and we certainly didn't elect "Brian" from Cordogan Clark. So, no way are we going to simply trust their opinion, nor should the BOE members. The BOE needs to work together until they reach consensus on HMS next steps and that includes agreeing on whether or not metrics do need to be approved in the first place before a new design can be developed at a much lower price tag. Question for them to answer is whether or not past BOE's had to go through the machinations of approving "metrics" before all of the other building referendum (CHMS, Prospect and Walker) were developed, approved by the BOE or voted on by the electorate. If those steps were taken, please publish the past "metrics." IF those steps weren't taken, why not and why is it necessary this time around?

Anonymous said...

Schneider stopped showing up for work and answering emails months ago. Here is the earliest one I found. Does anyone have an earlier date? Just delete your personal information. I received a few more recently. Btw, I never received a response from Ms. Seritella either.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kurt Schneider
Date: April 20, 2016

Thank you for your email. I will be out of the office. Please contact Kelly Serritella, Department of Learning Secretary, at 630-861-4945 for assistance. Please allow me 24-48 hours after my return to respond to emails.

--
Due to the high volume of emails, I will do my best to respond within a 24-48 hour period. Thank you for your understanding.
(Sorry, Kurt, we don't understand. Obviously your best isn't acceptable.)

Kurt A. Schneider, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent for Learning
District 181, Illinois

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." - Martin Luther King, Jr. (CAN YOU HONESTLY BELUEVE HE HAD THE NERVE TO CONTINIE TO USE THIS QUOTE?!)

It is very clear wht Kurt does in times of challenge and controversy.....he hightails it! He abandoned ship and went AWOL. Servicemen get dishonorably discharged for this behavior. Elementary school public servants in IL just get paid.
What an utter hypocrite. What will the board do? What will HR and Dr. White do about this so other employees aren't encouraged to do the same thing? Any inaction from the board sets a very bad precedent. Will the BOE and administration bring some dignity and honor back to the words of Dr. Martin Luther King?

The Parents said...

We want to thank Bridget McGuiggan and John Czerwiec for pointing out during last night's meeting that there were some devisive comments made on the online survey and that for a referendum to pass, the community needs to come together. It is therefore really disappointing to see that the VOTE YES political action committee -- now headed by some Elm parents after the original leaders stepped down after the failed referendum -- are continuing with their decisive and exclusionary behaviors. Check out their latest Facebook post which says: "Check out this great page with some eye-opening info about mold at HMS." It then links to a "closed group" Facebook page called the "HMS Parent Discussion Group." Apparently that group is now going around claiming that there is black mold in HMS, despite recent findings to the contrary that both the administration and the board are standing behind. Dr. White and the BOE have stated that HMS is safe. Dr. White had to say this repeatedly when the Vote YES group posted false statements on their website that the building was not safe. They took down their representations about the building not being safe soon after. Now they are churning the mill once again. Is the building safe? If you are to believe the BOE and Dr. White and the recent test results, it is. If it is not, then why is the community being lied to by the administration and the BOE? In this case, we don't think they are lying. So why is this political action committee aligning itself with a group that is saying it is unsafe? And why is it aligning itself with a private group? That's not a good way to start a campaign to pass a second referendum. With behavior like that, the referendum is doomed before the BOE even decides when and if to try again.

D181 Parent said...

I listened to the meeting last night by podcast and couldn't believe the rudeness and disrespect Gary Clarin showed toward a local architect who apparently sent a letter to the BOE expressing his concerns about the facilities metrics the BOE was being asked to approve. It is a real shame when any board member dismisses community concerns, especially those submitted by an expert in the field. Shame on you Mr. Clarin. You owe this gentleman an apology!

HMS Parent said...

Can someone please explain where Clarin, Turek and Vorobiev get off leaving their ONCE A MONTH BOE meeting in the middle of the meeting? Mr. Turek, in particular, doesn't serve on any board committees right now (at least not that I know of) so he doesn't have the excuse that he has attended more than one meeting a month. And when they are present, they should at least come prepared. It was quite apparent from the questions Vorobiev asked during the meeting that she hadn't read the materials. COME ON! We elected 7 people to represent the community. If they can't prepare or make themselves available to deliberate and discuss all the BOE business that is presented to them once a month, it is time for all three of them to quit the board.

Anonymous said...

I am disappointed at the disrespectful way the bloggers have referred to people on the board who have volunteered their time. I respect the majority of the board members who have helped make changes related to the curriculum and allow ability grouping to be reintroduced for math at the elementary schools. I'm also confused about how our district will continue to be good when so much negativity has been spread by this blog and it has contributed to the divisiveness that bloggers have now expressed a concern about. Taking sides and posting comments that are passing judgement without substantial data are not productive or transparent. We finally got a board that got rid of Learning for all and social justice.

Anonymous said...

9:48:

You might be disappointed with the blog, but I would hardly defend the actions of our volunteer board members. Do you really believe the board got rid of Learning for All and reintroduced ability grouping for math? That's laughable. My kids at Monroe (the lowest performing school) have teachers that are still trying to teach math as basically one class with little differentiation. Ability groups are lip service. Learning for all is still the mindset of teachers despite what you think. And what changes to the curriculum are you referring to? The new wonderful math program? What a joke. No wonder the scores are so low. We didn't have scores like this before this board was elected, so I wouldn't give this group of volunteers too much credit.

Anonymous said...

Bloggers - you stated above "It is therefore really disappointing to see that the VOTE YES political action committee -- now headed by some Elm parents after the original leaders stepped down after the failed referendum -- are continuing with their decisive and exclusionary behaviors. Check out their latest Facebook post which says: "Check out this great page with some eye-opening info about mold at HMS."

Your post is is filled with untruths. There is currently no VOTE YES political action committee and it is absolutely NOT headed by "some Elm parents". The original leaders didn't step down JUST because the referendum failed. I don't know where you collect your "information" from and/or if you personally confirmed with an Elm parent that they are heading the Vote Yes group- but what you posted is not accurate. There are hundreds of parents at EVERY D181 school (CHMS and HMS feeder schools alike) (parents with young children and those whose kids are no longer in the school system) who want to help spread the word and work towards getting the children of D181 a new HMS. Not DIVISIVE or EXCLUSIONARY. How is having a Facebook page to promote the sharing of information related to HMS, including links to survey reports, board docs, meeting agendas and announcements and reminders about BOE meetings against your grain. Just because there is a suggestion to check out another Facebook page that was started by a parent with concerns about the mold topic is not "divisive" and/or "exclusionary". Someone spoke at the BOE meeting during public comment about her concerns that the proper mold tests were not done and that when they repair/replace the roof, a mold expert should be working up there too in case all the work stirs up a problem - her words - not those of Vote Yes for HMS. There is no "alignment" between the 2. Whether or not there is mold at HMS is not the main reason the school needs to come down. Overcrowded, inefficient learning spaces - the list goes on and on.

Perhaps you don't agree that there is a need for a new HMS, maybe you just didn't like the plan or the cost or whatever. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion and I hope you took the survey to give it. The Facebook page promoting a new HMS doesn't comment on your blog, never criticized or complained about your posts or called you names. Yet you continue to spread your own brand of false information and divisive posts about a group of fellow residents who think there should be a new HMS.

You say you want the truth about so many topics on your blog and I applaud you for your tenacity and hard work in that regard. You are distrustful of the BOE and Administration and their decisions and information reporting. Why then do you think they are right with the mild issue? Isn't it possible there is still mold in the building? I personally don't know. But like you, there are many residents who don't trust the tests the Admin say were completed.

Anonymous said...

The vote yes page has a donate PayPal button - hence it is a political action committee. Have they filed the necessary paper work? If not, they better get on it. The district last month spent thousands of dollars on mold tests that came back clean. If this group doesn't trust them then they should pay for their own - it's not fair to ask taxpayers to keep funding these tests month after month until this group gets the results they desire. Finally, it is true that this group doesn't promote divisive discord but the people who comment on the page do. The only way a new school will be built is if the town comes together, and insulting and bad mouthing certain sections of town works against accomplishing that goal and quite frankly just makes me embarrassed to live here. Please remember 70 percent of the taxpayers don't hAve kids in the district and the Lane and Elm had more no votes than yes votes. It was a question of being too expensive, not people being selfish. The comments on the district survey were beyond disturbing.

Anonymous said...

8:11, I have visited the Vote Yes for HMS page and the new FB page that has been started. I also read the local papers and this blog. I have no problem with multiple sources of information about HMS, the curricula, the absenteeism of our senior staff, etc. etc. Sometimes posters on this blog and Vote Yes for HMS get carried away, but free speech is allowed in our democracy.

I am more concerned about the information coming from D181 and their PR machine. It is incomplete, nonsensical, full of gibberish, buzzwords, and spin. And to think we pay for this! Having multiple outside sources helps those of us that really want to know what is going on outside of the malarkey we receive from the district.

Anonymous said...

If you actually click the "donate now" button = it says the account has been closed. No funds are being collected. It is not the Vote yes for HMS group that is seeking mold tests.

Anonymous said...

The following are 3 links to recent newspaper articles. Please consider posting them as a comment of the day. The first deals with an initiative at Yorkville School District 115 in which homework and non-assessment work will no longer be graded. This initiative is going to be delayed. What I found interesting about it is that the Yorkville's Director of Teaching and Learning is leaving there to become D181's new Assistant Superintendent of Learning. Is this going to be the "next, best learning initiative" that is tried on our kids? I for one hope not, but would love to hear other's opinions. So please read the articles dealing with this initiative: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-abn-yorkville-grading-update-st-0525-20160524-story.html and http://canmua.net/world/yorkville-proposal-calls-for-end-to-grades-on-homework-749158.html

The third article deals with a federal investigation that is now underway against the College of Dupage in connection with actions allegedly taken by the past president and board of trustees. Subpoenas served to college administrators seek information related to various areas including administrator expenses. Perhaps it is time someone investigated D181? Here is the article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-college-of-dupage-federal-subpoena-20150415-story.html

Anonymous said...

People post on the facebook page with their names. People here take liberties they wouldn't if they had to put their names to it. You should be embarrassed for pointing the finger the other way and insulting and bad mouthing people here.

Anonymous said...

Here is a link to the legal requirements for a political action committee: https://www.elections.il.gov/downloads/campaigndisclosure/pdf/campdiscguide.pdf

If the Vote Yes Committee did any of the following, it should have registered itself as a Political Action Committee:

"The Illinois Campaign Disclosure Act applies to candidates, individuals, groups of persons or any organizations, political or otherwise, who: (1) have accepted contributions or made expenditures or independent expenditures in excess of $5,000 within a 12-month period in support of or in opposition to a candidate or candidates for public office, or any question of public policy to be submitted to voters; (2) have received or made expenditures in excess of $5,000 within a 12-month period for electioneering communication – defined essentially as any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, including radio, TV or internet communications, that makes an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate, political party, or question of public policy made within the 60 days before a general or consolidated election or 30 days before a primary election (this does not apply to communications exclusively between a labor union or a Section 501(c)(3) or Section 501(c)(6) organization and its members); or (3) have made independent expenditures in excess of $5,000 within a 12-month period. Independent expenditures are defined essentially as any payment or expenditure made for electioneering communications or expressly advocating for or against a candidate, provided the spending is not made in coordination with a candidate or their committee.

A contribution is cash, loans or anything of value received in connection with an election or for political purposes. Goods or services provided to the campaign or purchased on behalf of the campaign must be reported as in-kind contributions. Procedures for disclosing such contributions will be discussed later in this booklet. A candidate’s personal contributions or loans to his campaign must also be disclosed and considered when determining if or when the threshold has been reached. Once the $5,000 threshold has been reached, the Act requires that the committee file campaign disclosure documents with the State Board of Elections."

Note that the contributions don't have to just be CASH, but can include "goods or services provided to the campaign." The question that the VOTE YES committee must answer is how much CASH did they receive via donations fro either online donors or any other deep pocket individuals in town who we know were heading the VOTE YES committee when it was first formed? How much was spent on the yard signs, car magnets, website, etc? Did Cordogan Clark provide any consulting services to the group to help them market the referendum? If so, what was the unkind value of these services? If the combined total equalled or exceeded $5000, they should have registered. Making the online donation button inactive now is irrelevant. If a new referendum rolls forward, then this group will need to account for the money previously raised and any added to it. If the amount exceeds $5000 in any 12 month period, they must officially register as a Political Action Committee.

The Parents said...

Here is a link to the legal requirements for a political action committee: https://www.elections.il.gov/downloads/campaigndisclosure/pdf/campdiscguide.pdf

If the Vote Yes Committee did any of the following, it should have registered itself as a Political Action Committee:

"The Illinois Campaign Disclosure Act applies to candidates, individuals, groups of persons or any organizations, political or otherwise, who: (1) have accepted contributions or made expenditures or independent expenditures in excess of $5,000 within a 12-month period in support of or in opposition to a candidate or candidates for public office, or any question of public policy to be submitted to voters; (2) have received or made expenditures in excess of $5,000 within a 12-month period for electioneering communication – defined essentially as any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, including radio, TV or internet communications, that makes an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate, political party, or question of public policy made within the 60 days before a general or consolidated election or 30 days before a primary election (this does not apply to communications exclusively between a labor union or a Section 501(c)(3) or Section 501(c)(6) organization and its members); or (3) have made independent expenditures in excess of $5,000 within a 12-month period. Independent expenditures are defined essentially as any payment or expenditure made for electioneering communications or expressly advocating for or against a candidate, provided the spending is not made in coordination with a candidate or their committee.

A contribution is cash, loans or anything of value received in connection with an election or for political purposes. Goods or services provided to the campaign or purchased on behalf of the campaign must be reported as in-kind contributions. Procedures for disclosing such contributions will be discussed later in this booklet. A candidate’s personal contributions or loans to his campaign must also be disclosed and considered when determining if or when the threshold has been reached. Once the $5,000 threshold has been reached, the Act requires that the committee file campaign disclosure documents with the State Board of Elections."

Note that the contributions don't have to just be CASH, but can include "goods or services provided to the campaign." The question that the VOTE YES committee must answer is how much CASH did they receive via donations from either online donors or any other deep pocket individuals in town who we know were heading the VOTE YES committee when it was first formed? How much was spent on the yard signs, car magnets, website, etc? Did Cordogan Clark provide any consulting services to the group to help them market the referendum? If so, what was the inkind value of these services? If the combined total equalled or exceeded $5000, they should have registered. Making the online donation button inactive now is irrelevant. If a new referendum rolls forward, then this group will need to account for the money previously raised and any added to it. If the amount exceeds $5000 in any 12 month period, they must officially register as a Political Action Committee.

jay_wick said...

There were parents and community members from throughout the district at the Tuesday night "roundtable" for "next steps". The consensus from all in attendance was if there is any hope of replacing the existing middle school the cost has to be MUCH LOWER, the need based on more quantifiable metrics, and a design that will not lend it self to an "arms race" of additional spending requests.

Thoughtful community members who make their living in fields like higher education / research shared the fact that they routinely construct world class facilities with cost per sq ft far below the amount sought in the failed referendum. Whatever challenges there might be with the existing site and a lengthy construction schedule that arises from a desire to have students use the existing facility while its replacement is constructed around it must be factored into how accepting the broader electorate will be toward such choices; simply put the desire to retain the tradition / convenience / grandeur of the downtown Hinsdale site cannot also come with a perception that those families attending the district's other middle school will soon clamor for "matching upgrades". Taxpayers in our communities are exceedingly sensitive to the needs of all taxing bodies and the overall miserable fiscal mismanagement of Illinois, any effort to convince voters to back a voluntary increase in the amount of taxes extracted from them has to come with extraordinary levels of evidence that expenditures will be managed prudently.That has not happened thus far!

It was frustrating to hear some community members who are either cluelessly unaware or simply refuse to acknowledge that even with the current state of the middle school in Hinsdale, their attendance area is still more desirable than any part of either the overall district or any neighboring areas -- one need only look to Elmhurst, Oak Brook, Downers Grove, or the portions of Burr Ridge outside of the district and see that home buyers in those areas are not running from those "schools of inferior design". For perhaps the sharpest contrast of how little some buyers care about school layout one need only look at the portions of Oak Brook served by Downers Grove schools, in particular there are multi-million homes being built and sold in the area that attends Belle Aire, a school that to this day lacks any sort of interior walls. The restrictions that such a layout imposes on learning are no doubt far more challenging than anything at a facility that has been extensively retrofitting multiple times, as has HMS, yet buyers still spend their money to live in Oak Brook. The "do this or your property values will suffer" argument is thus easily dismissed.

What is true is that the district does need to come together. The current HMS forces unacceptable burdens on those who use it, the continuing financial resources that it drains from the district in elevated maintenance and portable rentals is a disgraceful waste that should not be tolerated. Some folks seem to believe that stacking up numbers higher and deeper than their opponents will lead to compromise, that however is nothing but a recipe for continued inaction. True compromise must acknowledge the legitimate concerns that sent the last proposal to the rubbish heap. The results of both the scientifically conducted phone survey and the less formal online survey clearly show a desire for NEW PROPOSAL. Start over.

I was encouraged that parents from the HMS attendance area felt good about positive comments from parents in the CHMS attendance area, anyone who has been inside HMS readily acknowledges how inefficient it is. Hopefully some one with the desire to see a new school constructed can carefully benchmark how much time is wasted by students and teachers traversing the treacherous layout. Ideally that would be compared to the more compact CHMS. That sort of true cooperation is desperately needed to move the district forward.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Parents for posting the language above - but I'm not convinced that even applies to a group of residents that are in favor of a new middle school and want to encourage others to also vote Yes. The language you cited is for expenditures "in support of or in opposition to a candidate or candidates for public office, or any question of public policy to be submitted to voters." I'm not sure a referendum for a new middle school falls under the category of public policy.

Anonymous said...

9:14: you want taxpayers to vote to significantly increase their taxes. If you want people to do that, insulting them and bad mouthing them with false rhetoric is not the best strategy

The Parents said...

10:04: We are confident that we are correct that even a School Funding Referendum would fall within these requirements. But if you don't believe us, feel free to contact the election commission and ask them.

Anonymous said...

If $5000 or more was donated in cash or in-kind to the VOTE YES committee, they are legally required to register as a PAC. The Referendum question was a question of public policy. It was a question about raising taxes, not building a new school. The intro to the guide the earlier comment links to even uses the word referendum, not question of public policy.

Anonymous said...

Here is the language from the introduction to the campaign disclosure guide: "Illinois Campaign Disclosure law includes many requirements for reporting contributions and expenditures. This guide explains the obligations of political committees under the Illinois Campaign Disclosure Act (PA 78-1183, effective September 3, 1974). Political committees, candidates holding or seeking elective office, as well as groups supporting or opposing candidates or referenda will find this guide a useful reference tool."

Read the last phrase. Clear as a bell.