they made the right decision. they weren't able to con people into overspending on the schools. I work in commercial construstion at the estimates are grossly overstated. Looks like somebody is trying to make some construction compant a boatload of money on the back of the taxpayers. To bad it's not going to happen SCUMBAGS!

i believe it was largely highland park that voted no. that's what i've heard at least.

Go here:
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/IL/Lake/28396/43582/en/summary.html

Click on REPORTS and you can download the DETAIL numbers as a ZIP file with an enclosed Excel sheet.

Note, there's apparently an issue with the filename extension on the Excel sheet that's in the ZIP archive - it shows up as XLS, but you need to change it to XLSX and open it with Office 2007+, Office 2003 with the compatibility pack installed, or OpenOffice 3.x (available free from: www.openoffice.org)

The referendum was tab 228 in the spreadsheet...

i agree the wants knocked this out of the water for me. too much is spent on athletics already. why so there kids can get an athletic scholarship and you won't have to pay for college?

I don't dispute that our High Schools are important assets, but I'd argue that the CHILDREN are the most important asset.
It is my sincere hope that the Board WILL develop a plan that makes fiscal sense and which meets the needs of the District without focusing on it's wants.
If desired, I will be more than glad to assist in that process. Being part of the Board is but one aspect of that process, and it needs to be more transparent that the previous plan was.
Finally, a mere 353 votes separated me from the next candidate getting on the Board. This being my first run at a seat on D113's Board, I believe it was a most respectable showing.

Put your real name on your posts, come to the meetings, and contribute.

Mr. Kelson:

I have hesitated to participate in any on-line discussions through the referendum process or in the aftermath - until I saw your post that accused me of being "sleazy" and "corrupt". I have worked on behalf of our community for four years and just enlisted for another four years for purely altruistic motives - the hope that I can repay the community for the fine young men who emerged from our school system - my two sons. I work well over ten hours a week to make our schools the best they can be and to protect the interests of our taxpayers, as do each of my fellow Board members. I have had no personal gain from these efforts and anticipate none.

The Board of Education and the administration have spent countless hours to put together a plan that we believed, in good faith, represented the best path for our schools and our community. While it is clear that a majority of those who voted did not agree with us, that does not justify accusations of wrongdoing or improper behavior. I am offended by your comments. And, to the other posters on this site who opposed the referendum, shame on you for not disavowing these comments immediately.

Michael Smith
Board of Education
District 113

Congratulations, Mike. Let me know if I can help in any way. Those of us who know you understan your ethic.

Danny - I did. If you have any questions - call me, I'll be glad to talk.

ZML - As a graduate of DHS over thirty years ago, and as a member of two state championship teams and state third place and a runner-up team as well, I can assure you that the last thing we worried about was the quality of our facilities. And ditto for the football team that won a state championship and a runner-up spot during my years . The fields at DHS flooded often I am not sure we cared a bit. We were successful because we were tough and disciplined, and trained with intensity that was rare. This of course didn't make for a balanced high school lifestyle, but such is the price of success. We went on to some of the best schools in the nation, too, and did well athletically, and more importantly, academically, bringing a sense of rigor and mental toughness to the academic arena as well. Nice facilities are, well, nice, but they are not the cause of success. What makes DHS and HPHS great is having a pool of great students and caring parents in combination with simply great teachers. And I am unimpressed by the arcane public finance arguments being put forth here by the referendum supporters. Show that the fiscal emphasis is above all else on great teachers and instruction, and public support will follow, especially given the significant tax burdens in District 113, proportionally much higher than when I lived in Deerfield.

Believe me I am no so called " spoiled brat" and yes I do understand taxes and financial issues with this referendum I had done much research on it prior to making my post and followed both sides closely all the way up to the election. Also do not be comparing our school to your private school growing up no one really cares. If you have ever took a 10 yard jog on Adams field you would re alize one reason why we would need the referendum. Also if you have ever swam in the pool or ran up and down the basketball court you would then also realize some major reasons the referendum needed. Yes I understand there were some silly things being proposed as in "energy efficient windows" and I am open to the idea of tweaks and changes but I feel that this process may be long and ugly and could possibly end up spending almost the same amount that we shot down after they come to realize everything that is needed.

Mr. Kelson - Do you really feel this was the COMMUNITY speaking? With 15% of the registered voters I think you should take your tail and walk away.

Mark, I certainly hope that you aren't trying to sell your house "as is" because that ship sailed. Like it or not the first impression of our schools are the schools SPORTING FACILITIES! So the fact that we as a community chose to let them look like we just don't care only leaves the potential buyer(s) with the impression that we don't care about our schools academics as well as our sports. So why would they invest in Deerfield, when the Glenbrooks, or Stevenson, Lake Forest, Libertyville, Gurnee, etc have all upgraded and are roughly the price to live?
So as an analogy, if you are selling your house, do you show as a mess or in its pristine condition? Doesn't your realator tell you to always show your house in Pristine Condition? Short-sightedness for the "better plan" is going to have very bad unintended consequences in my opinion. According to David Greenberg et al and Education First, I am wrong, and for the sake of my property value I hope I am, and only time will tell. So again, it is now Education First's turn to put up or shut up! So far all that has been offered is a lot of rhetoric and empty promises, as well as demonizing the teachers.
So the referendum has been defeated, stop gloating and SHOW US THIS BETTER PLAN!

Yes, you clean up the place before SELLING it, but we're not selling the schools. I seriously doubt that most buyers will look at the sporting facilities when they think about buying a house in our community. Some might, but I'd wager that the majority are going to ask about graduation rates, test scores, and the rigors of the academic programs.

Finally, no one's gloating, no one's demonizing teachers, the plan is in progress - and if you'd like to contribute rather than ranting and raving, your input would be valued. To build the better plan will require input from both sides of the aisle. Check the www.educationfirstin113.org website for more info...

Couldn't agree more!

They still do - but they also realize that in these trying times we all have to tighten our belts - thus the focus on NEEDS instead of WANTS. The District had items that would have been considered nice-to-have over the long range, and we all could have certainly discussed funding them over the long term. But to bundle everything up into one plan, and try to implement it in a big bang within 3-4 years was fiscally irresponsible. A long-range plan contains goals to meet over at least 10 years, not 3-4.

Cathleen, I agree with you! Perhaps the idea of Community should return to our confines. The Tea Baggers must go.

Civil discourse in difficult discussions would be a great lesson for our youth. We seem to be failing in teaching this lesson because we don't appear to embrace courtesy as a basic value throughout our town. Where do the discussions of who we are as a community happen? I would like to join in such conversations for my self and as a model for my children. If we don't have a current forum then how do we start one? Disagreement can produce growth just as easily as it can turn to rot, it all matters how you feed it.

No one said to do it all over Stu. There is a lot of work that has been done which can be used to build a better plan with. The District spent $100K - which is less than 1% of the total that was asked for. Spending $200K would give us a 2nd plan to work with and we'd still be less than 1% of the total. Nothing was wasted.

Stuart, there is no plan from these people. Only spite, hate, ridicule and short-sightedness.

My hope, Carol, is that this is an extremely sarcastic comment. If you have a better plan that will insure the longevity of the buildings, I think we are all ears. You can start with $50M for just infrastructure (HVAC, Electrical, Sprinkler Systems, window upgrades, ADA, etc.)

The opponents of the referendum believe they have better ideas. That's great. Bring 'em on!

Matt, please don't presume to put words in my mouth. I've said that if a better plan is created, that I'd support it. Have you any doubt that if such a plan is created, that I'd be an ardent supporter of it?

That whole story from the swimming coach certainly tugs at the heartstrings, but chances are that NONE of the students currently in the District would have been able to use new pools. Projects often see delays due to a variety of reasons, and what's a 3 yr project can often stretch out to 4 or more.

The lesson to take away is to "know your audience" - the "audience" didn't have the stomach for all the WANTS that the District packed into the plan. Had they focused on the needs, and put forth the WANTS as long-term goals to achieve over a long-term (10 yrs is a long-term), then they may have very well succeeded.

I went to HPHS for 4 years and never put one toe in that pool. Very few students utilize those pools.

Perhaps the Swimming Coach could organize a fundraising drive to privately underwrite the repairs/reconstruction? It worked for Wolters Field....

Unless the coaches raised enough money to cover the demolition, construction, maintenance, repairs, and operations for 50 years, I'd say "no thanks". Some of the money was raised privately for Wolters' but the taxpayers are on the hook for the ongoing costs of maintenance, and operations. And the eventual disposal of that artificial turf and it's infill.

The only way David Greenberg will support or create any plan is if he can search
Wikipedia for it!

Didn't you just comment in another thread about "hate, spite...and such" from persons? Sounds like you're simply hearing an echo from yourself Mara.

Please keep asking that first question, Ken. It's legitimate. I asked it several - SEVERAL - times in the last two weeks of the campaign (including on the E-1st site) and it was never answered.

These guys were the lead dogs in this race and they need to be held accountable to the community.

Try going to www.educationfirstin113.org Click DISCUSS - there's a new topic there...

Actually David I have gone to the website and surprise surprise no one has made any comments to discuss a new plan. I just wish Education First would let the community in on how their new plan is coming along - or are they just keeping everyone in suspense.......or maybe they are having some "transparancy issues"?

Did you post some comments or questions?

I would love to know where people are getting the enrollment numbers from that claim a 6% drop. From the IHSA website (the only place I can find historical enrollment), here are the official enrollment numbers provided before any multipliers or factors used for various sports.

2006 DFLD 1787 HPHS 1867 Total 3654
2007 DFLD 1760 HPHS 1867 Total 3627
2008 DFLD 1768 HPHS 1877 Total 3645
2009 DFLD 1730 HPHS 1965 Total 3695
2010 DFLD 1715 HPHS 2023 Total 3738
Chg DFLD -72 HPHS +156 Total +84
PCT -4.0% +8.4% +2.3%

So, Mike, what you are saying is that no bond issue would receive your support. The only remedies you seem to have in mind is cuts to the operations, which many would object to. The vast majority of the 100M is for salaries and benefits. Within that stream, let's say they elect to do a 50M infrastructure upgrade, you will still need to borrow against that stream, which requires voter approval.

I think that makes my point that there is no consensus that the opponents can find on this issue. To me it is a real problem. The Board needs direction, and when there are so many agends at work here, that will be difficult, if not impossible, to find.

Perhaps we need to not listen to the extremes (on all sides) and look for that 4% difference. However, figuring out who that is will be tough. The "No" voters have had their say, now they need to be part of the solution. In my mind, they now have taken ownership of the problem. I'll be happy to assist. Let me know when your first work session is.

Walter, I'm not saying that at all. If a solid plan that includes REAL tough choices about priorities were presented, and that *well-thought-out* plan provided for some additional bond issuance as a means of financing, even with new taxes, then it would be much more likely to pass. I would vote for MORE than $133M if a responsible and cogent case had been made for it. It's just the humble opinion of this one resident that such a case has NOT been made (from anybody on any "side.")

I was only commenting to share a perspective that I haven't heard much in this process in the hope that it might help us move forward.

For the record, I didn't support any of the candidates for school board. Also I love our teachers and hope they continue to be paid among the highest in the state. I personally would prioritize having great teachers way ahead fieldhouses and pools, but that's the point of the dialogue - making difficult choices.

Mike, the EDUCATION FUND and CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS cannot be co-mingled BY LAW! The money from property taxes is for the EDUCATION FUND. You can get rid of all the staff and administration and still have no money for Capital improvements. What about this issue do you not understand. To make CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Districts must raise money through the sale of BONDS! Once these CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS are made the maintenance is taken from the OPERATING LINES OPF THE EDUCATION FUNDS! AS Buildings age the maintenance costs increase! If buildings need replacements of CAPITAL ITEMS it must come from the CAPITAL side of the balance sheet! As items age the need for maintenance and increasing costs for that maintenance must come from the education funds. If things are replaced oin a regular schedule through CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS it ultimately reduces the costs from the education funds! OLDER COSTS MORE -NEWER IS MORE EFFICIENT!

There are several funds:
* Education
* Operations/Maintenance
* Debt Service
* Transportation
* Municipal Retirement/Social Security
* Capital Projects
* Working Cash
* Tort
* Fire Prevention & Safety

Each has certain tax rates, and limitations on use. Think of "Working Cash" as a de facto savings account - it loans money to other funds and has to be paid back. "Fund Accounting" is different from general accounting principles, but there's no reason why the District can't retain reserves in the appropriate fund for future needs. It's going to require refocusing on what the needs are, and how they get funded for their lifetime, and it's not going to happen overnight, but with a long-term plan, it's certainly achievable.

And "newer" may be more efficient, but it's not always cost-effective to make that replacement or upgrade. New windows are a prime example - it may cost more in labor than we'd save in increased solar efficiency.

Stuart. From the humble perspective of one voter, your post illustrates the kind of pointless rhetoric that misses the entire point.

To answer your question: I do have a mortgage. I am NOT suggesting that we should't use debt to fund our community needs. I AM suggesting that our current budget should support the long-term cost.

When I purchased my house, what I did was find something that fit *within* my existing budget - that included a down payment and monthly mortgage. What I did NOT to was go to my boss asking for a $133 million raise because I wanted more house than my current income could support.

Mike - given that the referendum would have fit into the current taxes that everyone is paying right now, aren't you really validating Stuart's point? Your current tax payment for these capital improvements would not have changed, only been extended. If an architect came to you and said that he could fix all of the major issues with your house, plus improve it bring it up to par with your neighbors (i.e improve overall value, for you and your neighbors), for less than it would cost you in the future AND your MORTGAGE PAYMENT WOULD STAY THE SAME...you would consider this not fitting within your current budget?

This bond issue would have counted for 4% of your overall tax bill. What are your ideas for reducing the other 96%?

Actually it'd be more accurate to say that you'd extend your mortgage payment for another 20 years. Regardless of whether it stays the same or not, it's still an increase in money spent.

I agree with Mike - the District needs to figure out how to set aside an appropriate level of reserves so they can fund their long term needs. When we put a roof on the house, we know it has a certain lifespan, and we start saving for a new roof a little each year so we have the money when we need it.

Add in nominal increases for inflation, and the District could fund it's regular operational and maintenance needs for the long term. Adding new or upgrading large items (such as buildings) would necessarily require bonds to cover the additional funding, but it combination with the reserves built up, those bonds would be less to begin with.

Our Salaries and benefits are the lion's share of the budget - that's the first place to start. YES, it's a different fund and I understand that - but it's not really possible to delve into the nuances of fund accounting in this forum... Suffice it to say, that'd be a start, and we'd have more work to do on the accounting side.

And while they are constructing their plan they should also get their facts straight about enrollment. Enrollment has not been declining over the last 8 years even though their is a total population decline according to the census. According to the ISBE Fall Enrollment Counts the enrollment in Dist 113 has gone up not down 6% that some have claimed. They have data starting with 2002-2003 School Years.
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/research/htmls/fall_housing.htm

I used the Total Housed Students column and also have included info for Dist 112

2002-3 DHS 1580 HPHS 1793 Dist 113 Total 3373 Dist 112 Total 4511
2003-4 DHS 1668 HPHS 1884 Dist 113 Total 3512 Dist 112 Total 4421
2004-5 DHS 1711 HPHS 1860 Dist 113 Total 3571 Dist 112 Total 4396
2005-6 DHS 1775 HPHS 1906 Dist 113 Total 3681 Dist 112 Total 4321
2006-7 DHS 1747 HPHS 1898 Dist 113 Total 3645 Dist 112 Total 4368
2007-8 DHS 1754 HPHS 1886 Dist 113 Total 3640 Dist 112 Total 4417
2008-9 DHS 1719 HPHS 1940 Dist 113 Total 3659 Dist 112 Total 4590
2009-10 DHS 1705 HPHS 2000 Dist 113 Total 3705 Dist 112 Total 4628
2010-11 DHS 1708 HPHS 1996 Dist 113 Total 3704 Dist 112 Total 4531

The enrollment figures came from the District 113 2010 Levy Presentation (page 11 of 20) - they have their actual numbers and projections...

I am sorry but that page does not support claims than enrollment has dropped 6% which I have seen posted many places. Also it shows the next 4 years to be pretty stable.

http://www.dist113.org/depts/businessoffice/Tax%20Levy%20Information/District%20113%202010%20Levy%20Presentation.pdf

2009-10 - 3672 - Final Audited
2010-11 - 3747 - 9/22/10 data
2011-12 - 3717 - Estimate
2012-13 - 3727 - Estimate
2013-14 - 3715 - Estimate

I never said they dropped 6%... They go down, then up a bit, then back down a bit... but not increasing.

Mark I share your sentiment, but you can't blame it all on the Senior Citizen population, with 10% voter turnout there was way too much apathy. It will be interesting to see what the naysayer's come up with, sure hope they don't want to use taxpayer money to reinvent the wheel!

And despite what Mr. Greenberg states the salary scale for Dist 113 is not out of line with our peers who I would define as New Trier, Dist 225 (GBN and GBS), Stevenson and Lake Forest which are our immediate Neighbors. The ISBE report he quotes if you look at the tiers they reference and compare to the above districts we are all pretty much the same. I have no clue where he gets Dist 113 is 17% higher than our peers number.

Actually the years of service are listed on the spreadsheet that the District posts...
For the calculations - I used the schools the ISBE has listed in the same size district as us for our state region. If you want to compare against the other schools, you can do that - but simply because some other school chooses to pay amount X for a teacher doesn't mean we have to engage in that educational arms race as well.

There's plenty of good and excellent teachers who would be willing to teach in our District. By way of example: D112 pays LESS than D113, and for one recently posted position they had well over 300 applicants. The ISBE Supply/Demand survey also states that there's 60,000 educators in the "pipeline" - I'm certain that some of them would be of the caliber we're looking for, and would jump at the opportunity to teach in a suburban district where the parents are highly involved and the students want to learn.

I again must echo Jim, THANKFULLY David Greenberg was not voted on to the board.
It is so inappropriate to compare the salaries of a high school teacher to that of an elementary school teacher. It is clear you have no respect for the teaching profession and the education it takes to become a teacher, nor the skill set, a kindergarten teacher has a completely different skill set then the Calculus teacher at the High School. Even the state recognizes the differences in the certification level. Yes District 112 pays less then District 113, as it should!
Most if not all of our district high school teachers hold degrees in the subject that they teach, they are not simply teachers with a BS in Education and a Master's in Education, to teach at the High School level teachers typically hold AT LEAST a BS in the subject that they teach if not a Master's at that level, along with their BS or MS in education. Greenberg you have such disrespect for the teaching profession!

Naomi, I have nothing but the greatest respect for the teaching profession and what it takes to become a teacher. I am married to a certified teacher, and I worked in the College of Education at WIU for 6 years - where they teach students how to be teachers. Yes, there are different skill sets between early childhood, secondary teachers teaching calculus, and Superintendents I recognize that.

But what you're saying is that kindergarten teachers are worth less than calculus teachers. Such a shame... such a shame. I don't believe that the grade level makes a bit of difference. How well the students learn speaks volumes.

Just because someone got a more advanced degree shouldn't equate to an automatic raise. IF, the teacher's performance is such that s/he deserves a raise - then fine. But those metrics need to be defined - and as I've stated previously, that will be a challenge because of the different levels of learners in schools.

Dan you just identified why this referendum was doomed, too many people think that this is about renovating 1 school, it wasn't 133 million to renovate JUST Highland Park, it was to renovate BOTH Highland Park and Deerfield. Perhaps the "Better Plan" should include severing the two schools and making them separate districts. That way Highland Park can control their feeder schools, and Deerfield control theirs. After almost 20 years in this district I can see the wisdom of the District 125 vote that combined 17 feeder districts into a single High School .....Stevenson. District 113 manages 2 schools, not one and what we have is 2 problems, not one.

I've proposed two trains of thought on this issue:

1) Split the district in two two schools. HPHS goes to HP, DHS goes to Dfld, Riverwoods, Bannockburn.

Essentially we have two of everything, and share very little. So why not have two districts?

2) Combine into one school. Again, we have two of everything, why not just consolidate?

#1 would be easier to do, and at some point, the split 113-HP could combine with 112 if necessary, and the split 113-DFLD could combine with 109/106 if they wanted to.

#2 would require significantly more gnashing of teeth and discussion. And an eventual combination with the feeder elementary districts would be quite a challenge.

Still voter turnout was poor and just shows how much we really care about our kids future, we don't! And with the likes of who we have now become beholden too, it is depressing.

Naomi:

I would not say we are beholden to anyone. There are several scenarios that can occur. First, by getting more people engaged in the process it is possible that we could arrive at something close to what was proposed. Or, we could wind up with something less that is an acceptable compromise. Or we can arrive at a stop-gap proposal that buys more time. Each comes with some issues.

My feling it is up to the opponents to provide some direction. Throughout the election they have said they wanted "a better plan." OK. You won. How do you get us to the "better plan." Unlike what David suggests, I do not believe it is a band-aid approach. New HVAC, electrical systems and fire sprinkler systems are "needs", not "wants." I also do not believe the community, in genral, supports larger class sizes and program or personnel cuts. If we are indeed top 10 system, it is because of the excellence in education that the staff delivers.

So, lets have a CONSTRUCTIVE dialogue. I'm ready to lead. I'm sure Richard Becker would volunteer as well. Let's set a time and place and get it going.

Tripp: I never said that HVAC, electrical, and fire sprinklers were wants. Those are definite needs. I'm more than willing to participate in a constructive dialogue. What's the ideal class size? 1:1 maybe, but that'd be just ridiculously expensive right? So we need to find a number that allows students to be engaged and have access to the teachers, while managing costs appropriately. Perhaps some classes go up in size by a few students, others go down, some stay the same... But I believe it deserves analysis.

As for personnel cuts - I'd start with administrators before touching educators.

David:

The difference is you advocate for repair, where it is my professional opinion that replacement is necessary.

There are any number of studies that show a corellation between class size and results.

And no one is going to agree to split the schools into seperate districts. In fact, according to the state, it is better to consolidate. Of course HP has experience with that and while I support that in concept, it hasn't saved much money.

Repairing the pools, yes. The HVAC would require some replacement - such as the heat exchangers/fans - but the ventilation ducts should be OK.

Mark - check your numbers! 15,000+ out of 48,000 voters voted! the percentage was much lower!

Thanks Mark - I stand corrected - guess I am still in mourning!

There are 42,388 Registered voters in the District. There were 45,709 votes cast. The reason more votes were cast than there are voters is because we could vote for more than one candidate. If you look at the number of votes cast for the Referendum (about 15, 700) question and assume that each of those voters also voted in the D113 race, each voter picked on average 3 candidates in the D113 race... There's about 29,000 people in Highland Park, so figure 13,000 people in Deerfield/Bannockburn/Riverwoods - doing the math it's about a 35% turnout... That's pretty high...

Yes, but it'd be a stepping stone to consolidating with the elementary feeder districts - so it'd be more of a long-term view. As I said, it's something that would have to be well-defined and will be a definite challenge to implement.

I bet if you talked to people who are in some of the combined Unit districts where elementary and secondary are combined they will tell you a story that it does not work well. I know people in the Waukegan Unit district and the High School and Elementary School leaders and teachers do not get along. You would be better off combining all of the feeder districts into one that feed into Dist 113. There is too much difference in the needs and requirements of an elementary district vs a secondary. The administrators need to focus on their own specialty whether it be elementary or secondary.

Yes, elementary Ed and Secondary school teachers are different skill sets, but I don't think we need to pay a teacher more simply because they can transfer their skills to the corporate world. Not everyone will want to do so...

The social compact used to be that teachers were paid less than they could make in the corporate world, so we funded their pensions and gave them other benefits to thank them for that sacrifice. However, now that the level of salaries has gone up and is commensurate with corporate salaries, I believe we need to start decreasing the level of funding the taxpayers provide for pensions and benefits. That is, as the level of salary rises, the level of taxpayer pension funding and benefits funding decreases.

When we're paying a teacher $160,000/year, they can fund their own pension and benefits.

David there you go again! High School Teachers are required to have more hours for their certification than an elementary teacher! Not many elementary teachers could qualify for a secondary position!

David - HS teachers put in more hours for their degrees and certification, they need to pay for that education, therefore they qualify to make more money than elementary school teachers. Simple economics.
Since we are on the topic for teachers who make SO much money that you feel can fund their own pension and benefits (lets pick on the teachers of the world who some seem to think created the problems of today's economic woos) - what about the private sector when their salary rises? Seems to me that tax bracket remained the same. And as stated in the past - those salaries posted did not include how many years they were teaching, xtras for coaching, extracurricular etc. And since your wife is a teacher - I guess she is willing to give up her pension and benefits.

As the salary and benefits pass a baseline - say $50,000 for the sake of discussion - the benefits and pension contributions made by the taxpayers (aka the District) should decline, and the employee contribution should increase. At a top point - say $100,000, the taxpayer contribution should be zero toward pension and benefits.
They're getting a salary - they shouldn't get any extras for coaching, extracurricular, being on a committee, chairing a committee, etc. I'm also unwilling to give someone a salary increase simply because they're still on the job (aka step increases) - if their performance increases, they can then qualify for more money from the pool of monies available for such raises. Just like in the private sector.

Lots of people work long hours - especially professionals. We get a salary, we do our jobs. We don't get extra money for being on committees, coaching, mentoring, etc... Lots of us have advanced degrees - perhaps several. We might not get a raise for getting the degree, we might have to find a different job to get a raise.
* The average salary for D113 teachers is $103K - they can't afford to live in this community?
* What would you say about the administrators that make $140,000 and live in Long Grove?
* What about those that make $160,000 and live in Gurnee?

Wow - David, you are so way out of your comfort zone when discussing education and teachers. Your disdain for and complete lack of comprehension of the profession makes me wonder how you could possibly be interested in being on the school board. 92% of D113 non-administrative staff have advanced degrees - Masters or higher - you don't believe that advanced degrees provide any additional value? As for step increases, they encourage longevity, rather than increasing costs by creating a transient workforce and start-up/training costs - just like in the private sector. Private sector companies that VALUE their employees recognize that it is better to keep them longer than to have high turnover. Higher turnover leads to reduced productivity (i.e. getting comfortable with the curriculum).
FYI - the $103K is fully-loaded, including TRS (9.4% paid by the teacher) and fringe benefits (i.e. health premiums)
Really, the private sector comparison in general is ridiculous - students are not "employees" that can be fired and replaced if they don't perform well (i.e. study hard, do their homework, practice, etc), nor are they widgets being assembled into a machine where objective quality tests can tell you if all of the parts work.

* I'm sorry, but I'm absolutely not out of my comfort zone when discussing education or teachers.
* I don't have disdain for the profession nor lack of comprehension regarding it - besides being married to a teacher, I have other experience involving it.
* Advanced degrees don't AUTOMATICALLY add additional value. Someone could be teaching mathematics, get an advanced degree in some other discipline, and that wouldn't add any value. I understand the argument that they have a more in-depth knowledge of A subject, and that should increase their ability to convey the information to their young charges. What I'm saying is PROVE IT, then we'll give you more money. Performance-based/merit raises are a state statute already - it's coming in a few years.
* Step increases: Lots of things encourage longevity, not just raises. The steps here go so high that someone would have to be off-their-rocker to leave this goldmine. Higher payments and longevity don't necessarily lead to better educators. Again, performance based/merit based payments with FAIR metrics to measure the educators on would be more worthwhile to me than simply giving someone a raise for continuing to stay.
* I completely understand the private sector and turnover costs - I've built those spreadsheets and done the analyses. Sometimes it's less expensive to let employees go.
* I'm not saying students are employees - I'm saying that TEACHERS and ADMINISTRATORS are employees.

For someone who "claims" he doesn't pay attention to national politics it sure sounds like you parrot the likes of Glen Beck, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh. All of whom have the same disdain for the teaching profession as you exhibit. Thankfully you lost hopefully with all your posts the entire community now knows how dangerous you would be if you ever choose to run again.

Ellen: Absolutely. Nothing unreal exists.

Naomi: I do not pay attention to most national politics. I don't watch or listen to any of the people you mentioned above. And as I've said before, I do not have any disdain for the teaching profession. There's no danger to someone who is willing to ask questions about why things are done, or if there are ways to do them better, more effectively, or efficiently. What is so dangerous about performance-based/merit pay for teachers if the metrics for measuring them are fair?

* D112 and D113 are two different entities - I'll grant you that. In D112 they DO pay for committee membership - if I recall correctly, it's another $40-45/hr for the time on the committee. Chairing a committee: $60-65/hr for the time on the committee. Contrast with a Private sector job: Boss: "You're on Committee X. It has the following goals. Make it happen."[no extra pay for it, we pay you a salary already] Employee: "OK, no problem"
* Both Districts allow accumulation of sick time, personal time, etc. that is absolutely unheard of anywhere but in the teaching profession. Read the contracts from both Districts. Contrast with Private Sector: You get 2-4 weeks per year for vacation, personal time, whatever. Use it or lose it. Maybe carry over 1 or 2 days for a week into the new year.
* SOME lawyers command $600/hr most don't. It doesn't mean that ALL lawyers should be paid that rate.
* They're paid for 180 days per year - so that means there's 185 days they're not working then? Most people in the private sector work an average of 50 weeks/year, or 250 days. Lots of salaried employees work more than 8 hours, 10 hours, 12 hrs a day. I've known salaried persons who regularly worked 60 hr work weeks - they did not make as much as some of the teachers in our Districts. Are you saying that the work they do is worth less than that of teaching?
* No one is disrespecting teachers. But the benefits and salaries need to be brought down to more reasonable levels.

David - first, aren't you up awfully late posting, given that you are supposed to be in bed by 9:30 in case your clients need you? Or is that only on the few nights a year that Wolters Field is used?

I didn't plan to get sucked in withyou again, but you are making this too easy. Your arguments for treating teachers the same as private sector employees are tired and old. But, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and put some ideas out there to equate:
1) Correct, not all law firms bill at $600/hr, but the large successful firms do, and they attract and hire the best talent. You seem to think that 113 just magically get a list of teachers, then hire the ones with the prettiest resume paper. "Awesome! I've hit the goldmine, and now I don't have to even try". Yes, the higher pay/benefits attract more potential teachers, but that means WE GET TO PICK FROM A BETTER TALENT POOL (just like in the private sector). It's not that there aren't good lawyers who only bill at $300/hr, but that doesn't equate to all lawyers reducing their rates. Do you not see the market forces at work here?
2) I'm very sorry that you have worked for companies that don't let you roll over vacation days. That sucks for you - try looking for an employer that has better policies to reward their employees (if they will hire you). There are many lists of "best places to work". Most of them are not failing companies.

continued..

Continued…
3) Excellent merit-based idea: all teachers and administrators should hold “shares” in the district. If scores improve, students receive scholarships, housing values go up, former students hit it big (I wish I was Jamie Dimon’s teacher), then they get bonuses commensurate with the financial and economic benefits derived. Is that “proving it” for you?
FYI – my wife was a teacher also – she taught at New Trier right out of college, and it wasn’t something she just “fell into”.
To clarify the “students as employees” point – if you were a department manager, with targeted goals, and you had someone on your team that wasn’t performing, trying or even showing up – you would probably fire them. If teachers are to be paid based on the performance of their students, will they have the option of “firing” any slackers? Yep…I think incentivizing teachers that way will go over really well. If I had that option as a teacher, wouldn’t I just try to push out the lowest performers? Or maybe I would sandbag for a time so that I could then show “improvements”?
This is a dangerous, slippery slope you want to head down…a real race to the bottom

All I can say Ken, is RIGHT ON!!

All I have to say as someone who grew up in a family of Teachers and Lawyers, and chose to work in the Private Sector is as I see the enviroment that Greenberg proposes would be one that would create an enviroment that is contrary to what is end goal is; if you don't pay your employees a competitive rate and offer competitive benefits (including healthcare and a pension as teachers in Illinois are NOT ENTITLED TO SOCIAL SECURITY), then the best will go to the areas that offer this. Lowering teacher salaries to "balance the budget" will in affect drive the good and innovative teachers out and leave the ones who are complacent.....and as an aside I can't think of a teacher in Dist 113 that fits into the complacent category! David, does your wife work under the conditions that you are proposing, I would like to hear her thoughts on the work enviroment that you want. By the way HERS not yours, I assume she can speak for herself!

Ken, my schedule varies greatly, I have been up working on items for clients, and while doing so, I find time to respond to posts. 1) We're already paying more than our peers - we're all in the Top 10 - so what are we getting for that extra money? The area has much to attract teachers even if we were to bring the salaries down. We don't have to pay more than everyone else to attract the best and brightest - by doing so, we are certainly attracting the most expensive.
2) Most companies don't allow accumulation of vacation days any longer - they haven't for years. Some might, but many don't. I certainly don't know of any that allow for more than 180 days to accumulate as in school districts...
3) That's not going to work. There's too many classes of students for that to even be considered remotely fair. That's why I said the metrics will have to be targeted to each level of learners. Just like the NCLB tests that are given to AP calc and Special needs students aren't fair.
4) Teachers aren't going to be able to "fire" students - that's why performance based pay metrics for teachers will have to be crafted to take that into account. Also, whenever crafting any policy or metric, one has to try to determine how the metric can be manipulated ("sandbagged") and put controls into place to prevent that. More frequent reporting can help to avoid that issue.
The concept of teacher performance being evaluated on a periodic basis is codified at 105 ILCS 5/24A(b).

Naomi - our salaries exceed that of our peers already. Making them competitive isn't going to force anyone to leave or not want to teach here. Look at the ISBE salary survey - it has all the information you could want to know about salaries and benefits for teachers all over the State. It's even broken down by region and local districts...

Just so everyone knows the peers David refers to include all secondary school districts of our size in the North East region which includes the following counties, Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will. If you want to do a real comparison pick schools that are in communities similar to HP and DFLD and perform as well as we do. If you do that you will find the salary scale in Dist 113 is very similar to those schools.

I challenge David to actually show us a calculation which includes the schools he is using rather than just throwing out our teachers are overpaid.

David, here are FACTS:
1) Starting salary at d113 for teacher with BA: $49,170 - New Trier is $51,225 (4.1% higher), Stevenson is $51,302 (4.3% higher)
2) Starting salary at d113 for teacher with MA: $53,599 - NT is $56,347 (5.1% higher), Stevenson is $57,458 (7.2% higher)
3) Salary for d113 teacher with MA at step 20: $109,858 - NT is $111,875, Stevenson is $110,504

Looks like our "actual" peers pay more...guess we are getting a bargain! FYI - the negotiated increase for 2011-2012 still shows lower starting salaries for D113 than 2010-2011 at NT and Stevenson. This data is from the published salary schedules at each district, and removes the skewing of the average based on years of experience and additional stipends paid to individual teachers.

Karen, I agree with you. I am sickened by a good number of these comments, many of which were written by people whom I know and respect. Having said this, I don't think less of them. However, what disturbs me is that this "conversation" began as a focus on the Referendum and its results, and somehow, became focused on teachers. Maybe this was inevitable, but I would like to think it was not. Everyone, the Referendum did not pass, so we must now deal with that. Regardless of whether or not we voted in favor or against it, we now need to re-focus, and develop a better plan. We also need do a better job of communicating this plan to the communities, which was a common criticism made by many who live in our two cities. As a former teacher of 0ver twenty-five years, twenty of them in Highland Park, let me just say that my day began at 5:30 am, and, on most days, I left school well after 5:00 pm, with no pats on the back expected. That was my choosing. I was a responsible and respected special education teacher. I taught high school, junior high school and elementary school, and worked hard at every level. I won't even get into salary differences. I am now retired, and remain very active and involved in education. Get a grip, people! Get back to the subject at hand, and no more negativity.

I like the idea. @Jacob, should we do a "tweetup"?

Yes, yes, absolutely. Sorry, Lucy, for not having organized something yet. Does anyone have any suggestions for a location? Considering I have no idea what the turnout would be like I'm unsure of where to go.

A place like Michaels or Potbellys (I know Steve would love this) would be able to accommodate a fair range of people whether big or small.

I think Bobby Dubin at Stashs would also be very accommodating to the idea - and then he could introduce everyone to their new (and might I add, delicious) pizza!

I think Bryce has a great idea.

The better plan will require the work of people on both sides of the aisle, no one is stalling or has that intention, and no one's hoping that people age out of the District. Really. However, the better plan will be reached together with ideas from both sides of the aisle. It will be up to the District's Board to facilitate the forums for that to occur.

And no one has ever said that teachers should work for free or should be expected to. I don't know where that idea even comes from...

kum-bye-ah? :-)

I've never tried to be a distraction, and I don't want to be one. I've said all along that I want to help formulate a better plan - that's what is in the works, that's what I intend to do - but it will require the buy-in of the District Board.

Greenberg step aside? That is doubtful

Mara and all:

While post-mortums are valuable learning tools, it's time to start moving forward. The need for improving schools hasn't gone away with the defeat of this particular proposal. In fact, the need becomes greater with time. My "guess" is that it will be 2 years before this issue comes up again, because most districts do not bring referenda in conjunction with Presidential elections.

At Lucy L's suggestion, the Patch as graciously agreed to convene an event open to anyone interested, I assume, to get together and talk. That seems like a good place to start a forum led not by one side or another, but by the community at large to engage in a larger discussion about what our vision for our community is, the role of schools and other institutions play in fulfilling that vision and what kinds of facilities support those institutions.

It's a large task, but by creating this larger view, I believe we can arrive at a better place.

Dan - I wasn't going to comment anymore on this site - but I couldn't agree with you more. The Education First Organization was so negative and put such a spin on misrepresentating the facts that if people really did not listen to real facts they were mislead. Speaking with many who received a robo call from Education First Leader - Pete Koukos - who said "he never was against a referendum til now"... made many question the integrity and honesty of an elected board and administration who just put out the real facts and concerns about the High Schools. They say they want to work with the board to put together another referendum but with comments from George Meister like "we defeated a process that was not honest or truthful. The actual facts were not presented properly....." or from Elaine Sobel who sent out an e-mail referring to the district 113 website boards statement on the referendum as an " arrogant and offensive statement and feel is should not go unanswered.....". They seem to be an angry group who does not want to listen or work with anyone but themselves because they have all the answers.
I agree - one day we will look back and regret what could have been but wasn't.

Dan , et al:

Thanks for calling me an idealist, but I am far from that. I believe in the practical. As you know, I shared the Board's vision of the facilities. Unfortunately, either the value wasn't communicated clearly enough, or the voters don't share that vision.

My point is not to let any one group determine what's next. I believe if the opponents craft that vision it will not be something that is reasonable to me. We can't put band-aids on a wound that needs stitches, yet that is what some will do. Other "no" voters want realistic improvements and still others just wanted a voice in the process.

The school board did lead us to this point and their leadership was not accepted by the majority of voters. I'd suggest it is up to us, as leaders, to step in and provide them assistance in either crafting a new plan, or, even better, making some of the refinements that were discussed like a cost/benefit analysis of just keeping the B/C buildings or replaceing vs. repairing the pools. Perhaps armed with that information and a public engagement process, a workable, acceptable plan can emerge.

Ellen - Elaine's email was in reference to the rather condescending statement posted on the D113 website by Ms. Shelensky where Ms. Shelensky stated that the "Board was displeased" with the vote [on the referendum] because the Board unanimously approved it. Ms. Shelensky's statement has since been taken down from the D113 website, but if anyone's interested, I've preserved a copy on my website (www.davidgreenberg.org). If anyone was arrogant in their response, it was Ms. Shelensky (which could be why that message is no longer there).

An additional consideration was the Special Meeting of the Board called for 7:30AM Friday (today) and essentially set shortly after the vote on the Referendum, to discuss Artificial Turf @ DHS. That meeting was subsequently canceled. I'm not sure what was going on there - but that certainly seemed as if the Board hadn't listened to what the voters had just told them. In my opinion, that would go to the "lack of honesty or truthfulness" because saying that they want to better engage the Public, and then scheduling a meeting at 7:30AM on a Friday - with 2 days notice might be legal, but it's certainly not the way to engage the Public.

I agree with Tripp - one particular group should not determine what is next. Indeed, I'd dare say that's what caused the problem in the first place. We all need to work together in a collaborative, and transparent manner to make this work.

The pools included in the plan are not olympic sized. They are 25 meters; smaller than the pools at some of our neighboring schools.

As the NCAA says, almost all of our student athletes will some day turn professional, not in sports, but in their chosen field. All extracuricular activities are hugely important to our students' development - yearbook, music, drama, robot club, many others and certainly athletics. We should have adequate facilities to make sure all of our students get the opportunity to grow and flourish during these important years. Ath HPHS and DHS the PE and athletic facilities, including the pools, the gyms and at DHS the athletic fields are quite inadequate. The plan included making these facilities appropriate for our students for generations to come. The needs didn't change on Tuesday and hopefully, that dream won't die.

Kurt,

My daughter was involved in theater at DHS, working on stage crew and partricipaing in performances. They had wonderful equipment, teachers who are great leaders and good facilities to work in - the auditorium and stage theater areas. My son is involved with band at DHS - he plays in three bands, has particapted in concerts and competitions, has found his way into district bands, has lessons, etal. All supported by a brilliant band director and good facilities. The arts are supported by Friends of the Arts at DHS just as sports are supported by the Booster Club. In both cases, the majority of the programs' costs are supported from the school budget, just as it sould be for such important aspects of our children's education. Yearbook students are part of a class (my other son was in that class his junior year) which is led an enthusiastic and knowledgable teacher also paid for by district funds as is the computer and other equipment supporting that process. These are all important aspects of our children's education which are primarlity paid for by school funds.

Katherine,

I have some questions - I am only trying ot understand the reasoning behind your thoughts and the thoughts of others who oppose the building / improvement of PE and athletic facilities. No arguments or attempts at persuasion on my part - I'm just trying to better understand.

With the understanding that PE / athletic facilities are used by all of the students for PE and wellness / fitness work and that almost 55% of the students are on at least one athletic team each year, why specifically are you opposed to spending money on such facilities?

What is your connection to the schools (again, trying to understand the context of your views)? Do you or have you had or will you have children at the schools and if yes to any of those, when have your / would your children attend?

If you do / will or have had children at the schools generally what activities are they or were they involved with.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Harry

David - I read the statement and I cannot find anything "arrogant, condecending, mean, not nice" in it. Why wouldnt someone feel disappointed on something that a lot of time and effort was put into and was rejected? It is like studying hours and days for a test and than getting a bad grade. Of course you are disppointed, but you pick yourself up and go back to work the next day. Education first just always feel the need to have the last "mean" word and can't wait to criticize. I still am looking forward to seeing their proposal. Nothing has been put on their website. Have you come up with a better plan as promised?

Harry - that's incorrect. The meeting was originally scheduled and posted April 6, 2011. It was marked as cancelled on 4/7/11 @10:03AM.

http://www.dist113.org/boardofeducation/Board%20Meeting%20Notices/2010-2011/04-08-11%20Special%20Meeting%20Notice-Agenda%20CANCELED.pdf

I understand disappointment, that's a natural reaction. However, they said this:
"Board of Education members are displeased with this outcome because the Board unanimously believes that these renovations are necessary to ensure educational excellence."

It came off as arrogant to me because a majority of the voters had just told them that they did not believe that the renovations were necessary to ensure educational excellence, and they said they were displeased because they'd unanimously voted for it. We're not students, they're not OUR teachers, they can be displeased - but ultimately, the majority of voters spoke. They've been sent a clear message that the majority of voters didn't agree and they have more work to do. The majority of voters are the ones who were displeased with their plan.

I'm not trying to be critical, or have the last word, or be mean but scheduling a SPECIAL meeting to occur at 7:30AM on a Friday, ostensibly do something which was included in a referendum which a mere 2 days before DID NOT pass, doesn't pass the smell test. And it's certainly not conducive to Public participation or input.

A better plan will take time to develop. Personally, I DO want to work with the District on developing a new, better plan. Others do as well. A meeting with others is scheduled next week. Give the process some time to work.

As for the Artificial Turf - we've discussed that. Are there any figured on the expenses other than from the manufacturer available? I really do want to see them.

Keep asking the question, Jim Longman!!!!

Personally, I'm not giving the process time to work, Dave. Quit back-peddling for your guys. Let me quote their site:

"We will get to work on a better plan on April 6 with a process that includes: a) a community leadership team that truly represents the community b) multiple architectural firms providing competing options c) a thorough engineering analysis of the decision to tear down the two HPHS buildings and d) quantitative analyses demonstrating the need for all proposed expenditures. "

That's a lot to do. So what they h*ll have they done?!?!? It's now three days later and your boys, Koukos and Fried have said NADA. Similar to when I asked the question about what Fried did to help change things after he actively fought against the park and library referendum. I got no answer even though I got an asnwer to everything else on their board the previous three days.

Boys, you better start working. We're watching. What's the plan? Don't give kme this garbage about how the process takes a long time. You better have time to start making phone calls and setting up meetings.

I look forward to the group's proactive plan that the board can consider. All of us should hold them to that.

But I have a good guess of what the ultimate conclusion of this will be.

BDB: No one said it would take a LONG time - it will take time. It's begun already, but if a better plan didn't exist 3 minutes after the referendum failed, that's unfortunate - but why would anyone work on a plan BEFORE the referendum failed? If it hadn't, then that would be work which would be wasted.

Saying "I'm not giving the process time to work" - is analogous to a 3-yr old stamping his feet and crying "BUT I WANT IT NOW!" - somehow I think you're older and wiser than that.

YES, I and others are quite willing to work with them. As has been said previously - the better plan will require input from both sides of the aisle.

Jim:

The point you raise is valid and one that I have been trying to raise. The "No" block doesn't have consensus within their own group. Richard Becker says gut B/C, replace infrastructure, replace the pools in their existing position. David Greenberg says repair most of the stuff and replace where necessary. Others say do not do anything that requires a bond issue. Big difference in scope and price. How does the Board (or anyone else) get any direction from this?

They are items to be examined. If it's more cost effective to gut B/C, replace infrastructure, then I'll support that. Everyone I've talked to in the District that was against the referendum said they would have voted for it, had it not focused on WANTS. So again, the trick is to determine wants v. needs and exclude the former. A justification for each need will need to be made so people understand why it's a need - not everyone will agree, but it's a start...

I'm not rallying against a private donation - I don't want the private donation to be used as a way to get something expensive installed, and then dump the costs of future operations, maintenance, replacement, disposal, etc. onto the taxpayers.

I came out against the artificial turf due to: cost, heat stress, toxic runoff, safety concerns (surface hardness, injury rates, MRSA infections). And that I was the only person who spoke, doesn't mean I'm the only person against the turf - I had several people come up to me afterward and thank me for my comments against it. They didn't want to speak because they weren't comfortable speaking in Public, or were intimidated because the Football Team and supporting parents were there (not that they'd do anything physical, but those individuals were intimidated for their own reasons).

No one was concerned that the turf at HPHS was part of a a Broader Plan, they were concerned that DHS wouldn't get their turf field as well and that DHS was being ignored in favor of HPHS. Somehow the Board twisted that into "we need a long range plan" and that begat the whole Referendum process...

I presented the studies and surveys to the Board. They chose to ignore them and vote differently. That's their choice.

I've seen the cost analysis from the mfr - and from experience with vendors in many industries, I've learned not to take the dog 'n pony show as gospel. I'd like to see actual costs of maintenance from users who are both satisfied and dissatisfied. Labor costs, materials costs (infill additions), machinery, maintenance on the machinery, striping costs, 5-yr infill replacement, disposal costs, repair costs (if some fool decides to vandalize the surface), sanitization costs, weeding/pesticides/etc, cooling costs/heat monitoring, toxic runoff mitigation/monitoring.

The compare and contrast with a grass field.

Jim, I don't make any dog 'n pony shows - I'm not a vendor selling a product. It's not up to me to provide those figures, it's up to the Board to provide them to the Public as part of it's due diligence. If there's claims being made about cost savings - let's see them. To me, proper due diligence means talking to actual users - not just ones referred by the manufacturer, or just our "peers" - whenever I go out to buy a product, I want to talk to people across the spectrum because I want to know what the issues or risks will be - then I compare and contrast against what is currently in place to make a decision.

If the District spent $60,000/year on maintaining the grass surface, what were those costs comprised of? Salaries? Equipment? Fuel? Seed? Water? Pesticides? Where did you obtain that number from?

Regarding the heat - the studies I read said that there were issues with high surface temperatures on the turf at relatively low air temperatures, so it may not even be summer that's a concern.

I'm not against "any improvement" or "Mr. No", I'm not against capital improvements that are needs. In this economy - I'm against the WANTS.

Mr Greenberg:

I've answered your questions multiple times. Answer my question. What capital improvements are you FOR. What NEED do you see at the schools that are NOT maintenance?

Phylis - No, education first said lets get to work on a better plan. They did not say "we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Board on a cheaper proposal". They made the community believe that they had a better plan in the works than the one out there. There is nothing rhetoric about that - just the plain truth. Thats what I thought. I have contacted the board and no one seems to know of a meeting. The anger of the no committee was loud and clear - slanderous name calling and politics at their worst. The way I look at it - whoever shouted the loudest won. The negativity was loud and clear.
I feel bad you think that the economy stinks - I feel it is turning around and getting better everyday. I guess I perfer to be an optimist rather than a pessimist. It is easier to go through life that way, more exhausting being negative all the time.

As someone who has not engaged in name calling or, I don't believe, devisive rhetoric, I want raise a couple of points that I have noticed. First, I do not believe that there is a consensus amongst the voters as to why they did or did not support the referendum, That is, in fact, the single biggest issue in trying to develop a different plan. The Board engaged in a process and put forth a proposal that they believed was best for the students and taxpayers of the district. The voters disagreed. Ed First who led the opponents asked for a better process and a better plan. Now they need to step up and tell us what, in their opinion, that plan looks like and what is the inclusive process that they will engage the community in.

David Greenberg says that process has already begun. However, no one in this, or any other, public forum has described that process and how it will bring the community together to solve the real problems that exist in the buildings. To me, this is most critical, b/c though I supported this proposal, I may not support a proposal that I do not believe adequately solves the problems in the buildings.
continued

I'm far less interested in the PLAN and far more concerned about how that plan is arrived at. I wrote Pete Koukos and offered my help and was told that Richard Becker would be in charge of developing a plan. I promptly withdrew my offer because I believe that a true community building effort is not run by the supporters or opponents, but by both groups together.

As I have said before, now is the time to come together. The election is over and the people have spoken. We need to understand what they are saying, and I don't believe it is as black and white as Phyllis says, analyze the problems and come up with solutions that solve the problems. And, if some of the opponents are true to their words, we can get broader support regardless of the cost.

So you want to discuss the same topics ... again? Unbelievable. You know that the issues haven't changed, right?

How about A FREAKIN' PLAN?!?!?!? Let's see YOUR IDEAS ... IN DETAIL ... in one focused document. You've had enough time. Let's go: put it out there, let people respond and give the board something substantial to consider.

If this is the way the vocal opposition to this referendum plans on being involved, I send my complete sympathy to the entire board.

Stop with the melodramatics already, it's not helping anything. The phrase "SO WE CAN GET TO WORK ON A BETTER PLAN" means "WE" - the community in conjunction with the District. The first plan was packed with WANTS. A better plan will be focused on the needs. Obviously it's going to require discussion from all involved. We've already seen what happens when only one side is involved.

Would you rather continue to rant here or actually contribute on a forum that's being dedicated to the purpose at hand?

Dude, you are the LAST person to lecture anybody on useless and melodramatic ranting online. And as long as you do it, I'll be here too.

You see my problem is that I don't think your site will be anything except a forum for your comments. What do you propose will be done with all the comments? And don't tell me that potentially several hundred messages will be sent to the board in an unorganized fashion. That will do them no good.

If you were to tell me that you will develop a focused and concise line-item plan based on messages over the next ten days, I could go with that. Three-to-five promenant citizens on both sides of the discussion can develop the plan with you and present it publicly on your site and to the board. Would you commit to providing that type of detailed proposal? If so, when would you like to post it on your site?

Now, THAT would be constructive.

(There it is for you, Dave, on a silver platter. You can be the hero.)

I don't want it to be a forum for just my comments. It's got to be from "both sides of the aisle" - that is - multiple points of view.
I don't want it to be some unorganized jumble either - I've gone and created some initial top-level categories to get things going, and some initial sub-level categories that are related to each school below those.

As more are needed, they can be easily created.

I'd LOVE to have prominent persons involved posting and hashing things out. When we get something nailed down, we can lock the topic - and that information can be pulled out and added to a line-item plan.

I really do want the whole thing to be public. Once it's all hashed out, we can put it together and present to the Board for their review...

Please, take a look at the forum - let me know what you think of the initial setup and what, if any, other categories need to be added...

The date would depend on the amount of input we get, and where we are in the planning process. June 1 isn't a bad target to shoot for - if we can get people engaged.

Dave, if you really want to move this forward, there shouldn't be any stipulations. Either the community joins in the discussion or not. If the community doesn't find your leadership of the discussion worthwhile, then there is no shame in putting out a separate detailed plan for the community to discuss and the board to consider. Simply put it out there with a certain period of time for consideration and discussion. then you have time to revise based on input.

Your views would be much more respected if you were willing to put yourself in the same position as the board. Commitments with prerequisites here and provisions there just result in the same ol' same ol'.

I hope you'll consider a more concrete direction. I'm done ... for the moment.

Yep! They are counting on everyone just "forgetting" about the issues and problems, besides, DG will chime in to go to his web-page where he the "great" communicator has set-up a blog, because he is "all-knowing" and right.
Face it there is no plan....there will be no plan, just bickering. Too many people just too self-centered to see the forest through the trees.

Incorrect - no one expects anyone to forget anything - let alone the needs of the schools, or why the referendum was defeated. I'm not "all knowing", sure I'm an expert in some things, but not "every thing".

If you'd like to help contribute to a better plan - you are welcome to do so, just as everyone is. I'm simply providing an electronic version of a meeting room for that to take place.

Natalie: I haven't been in the community enough to know the editorial direction of the Patch, so excuse me if this is out of the realm of the Patch.

However, i hope you'll help the community as a watchdog for E-1st and others who liberally used the phrase "We will get to work on a better plan on April 6." This was the centerpiece of their vocal campaign and they should be held accountable to the standards that they set.

Otherwise, their campaign will have been a huge waste of the taxpayers money they are supposedly seeking to save.

Yes, I look forward to a productive opposition - not simply empty rhetoric and opposition to ANY investment in the community.