About RB — and “Curious Resident” — 1/26/2012

[Answering another goofy idea from “Curious Resident,” whose has admitted by never denying that his household income is somewhat dependent on the RBEA contract.  Mine isn’t.]

Curious — no wash.

and i can summon no pity for your having made a single personal disclosure. i am here in my own name–and ask you for zero consideration for the falsehoods spread about my family, lies about a child of mine, invitations to move to hinsdale, accusations without proof, etc. etc. i am happy to pay that freight to have helped the turnaround at what was, as demonstrated by the parade of horribles, a grossly mis-managed and poorly led high school that in no way represented the best in this community.

the phrase “structural deficit” means “spending problem.” any public institution that programs itself to spend more than its taxpayers are willing to pay shows itself to be captured by rent-seeking internal constituencies. that was RB before the referendum. the voters replied accordingly.

as for the referendum, on which, i suppose because of your dependence on RB-sourced income, you seem singularly focused and incapable of letting go, i am proud to have — both in person and here on the web — encouraged all who supported it to vote for it, including you. then, the Landmark article showed illegal campaigning by tim scanlon and the david bonnette crew. upon that, i turned, denounced the referendum, and said it must not pass for the illegality that had foisted it, and i am proud of that, too.

frankly, it would have lost either way, regardless of what i said. i claim zero influence.

the referendum was a lie. it said, “for a good school, pay up.” it meant, “hey you outsiders, pay for the deal we insiders cooked up without you.”

its supporters were either duped or complicit. the prior board, at dr. bonnette’s instigation, was complicit. it chose to deficit spend at an ungodly rate, without a care about the consequences, over the objection of several members, effectively pointing our school bus to the cliff and flooring it. that choice is more significantly reducing our financial options for next year than the referendum’s loss. the referendum’s loss is more seriously felt in the out-years.

good people who meant well were duped. they honestly and innocently believed the complicit who said the school was well run and the money was needed. all of them want a first-class school, as i do. but after the revelations of management collapse since dr. bonnette finally left, i have not heard one of them say, “i am proud to have voted for more money for a school that was so poorly run.” they ended up with the complicit in the less than 21 percent.

the rest of us — the 79 percent — understood how poorly the school had been run, and how enormous the referendum was. for that much dollar support, easily more than $100 million over 20 years, an institution must be deserving. instead, RB deserved a turnaround.

in that light, had the teachers run their own investigation into what improprieties — if any — were committed by their colleagues, and published such findings, the reconciliation we need now would zoom forward. instead, the teachers have said nothing about very serious allegations. what are we to think?

the teachers — who are licensed professional educators — never said a word about the paw and cyberdog. $500,000 to $750,000 went up the chimney without so much as a curricular plan or evaluation. that money would come in handy today. what are we to think?

when jack baldermann was found to not have his certificate, half a dozen teachers were found in the same status. mr scanlon and the board hushed it up, no sanctions were ever announced, no one was held accountable. what are we to think?

when the district’s families can afford no more, and the budget knife is reaching classes and teachers, the teachers have gone nine months without offering a give-back. that seems to mean those over the danger zone are content to lose their young colleagues, even if it means fewer classes for RB kids. what are we to think?

you and others who depend on RB for income ask the taxpayers to ignore the $2 million in cuts we have already made, ignore whatever improprieties took place, ignore the $66 million dollar project we were told was ‘on time and under budget at $60 million’, ignore the laundry list of broken promises and failed initiatives, and pay more.

so, we decided to ignore your “structural deficit.”

and you have the nerve to question our commitment to the school.

regardless — simple yes or no — be honest to the people whose attention you request — do you deny that your household benefits from the very RB spending for which you argue here?

if your arguments are solid, we’ll ignore your self-interest, i assure you.

POSTED THURSDAY JAN 26, 2012 22:36 #
Explore posts in the same categories: Riverside Brookfield High School -- Athletics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: