Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43

Thread: D41 Election and Candidates

  1. #16
    Forum Regular - Vociferous Class
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by innovator View Post
    Frankly I find you pathetic.....So you want them listening, but only to you?
    Join the club........"I don't really care, I could go fishing".

    I would like it if they listened, explained in transparent terms why they are going a different direction, then vote. All I hear from Clarkhholz is wah, wah this happened to me when we were in the minority, so we are going to show you now. Clark was caught not telling the "exact truth" about the search firms usage of focus group involvement. Instead of trying to pin it on the search firm, why don't they come right out and say, "We're doing it this way, because we can, and we will".

    At least that would be transparent. This was a trait that they platformed on, wasn't it?

  2. #17
    Forum Regular - Vociferous Class
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Rath View Post
    Wow...🍬🧔🏻
    Just so we are clear. I am not calling you a loser. I am saying that the vote was split, causing you to lose. This disproved that it was unanimous "In the community" to have this change.
    Besides, Clarkhholz is easier than Clarkhholzath to say and type.

  3. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by GE Fan View Post
    I'm actually for different schools of thought working together on boards to provide balance. I'm also for said board members doing so with respect to one another, respect to the staff and respect to the community.

    Obviously, in my opinion that last qualification eliminates at least one member. Was just wondering about the others.
    As far as the candidates, working together & playing nice is one thing, but what are they working towards should be your bigger concern.

    Buttimer is aligned with Bruno and Nelson. Bruno is aligned with the Union. And now Buttimer campaigning with Hill and Estes. Buttimer essentially posts on her campaign website that she will max your taxes every year no matter what. To quote "Increasing flexibility of future boards by allowing district revenue to increase by inflation via the full levy" (see pic)

    So if you get Buttimer, Hill, Estes on the board with Bruno, what do you think will happen?

    Buttimer has said that older community members who can't afford taxes should downsize. Mind you the board was running a $10 million surplus (20%) of budget the past two years and she's still advocated to max the levy.

    Bruno wanted to max the levy to stockpile money for a kindergarten center that the community already said they did not want to pay for.
    GE Love - you should be furious he isn't "listening" to the community!!!! Oh wait, maybe he IS listening to you and your crew?

    Screen Shot 2019-02-07 at 3.24.28 PM.jpg

  4. #19
    Forum Regular Bob Solak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by innovator View Post
    A Buttimer essentially posts on her campaign website that she will max your taxes every year no matter what. To quote "Increasing flexibility of future boards by allowing district revenue to increase by inflation via the full levy" (see pic)
    ....
    Buttimer has said that older community members who can't afford taxes should downsize. Mind you the board was running a $10 million surplus (20%) of budget the past two years and she's still advocated to max the levy.

    This is a automatic "no" vote for me. Anyone who advocates maxing the levy "because we can" shouldn't be put in a position of fiscal stewardship of our tax dollars. Certainly there are times when maxing the levy is advisable IF the need is demonstrated. But the default should be to only request the dollars that are actually needed, and whether that means the levy is maxed or not is dependent upon the number crunchers at the DuPage Clerks' office.

    I am aware, through their past votes, of Clark and Buchholz's view on the issue.

    I am interested to hear where Hill and Estes actually fall on the matter. I'm not willing to ascribe Buttimer's position to them just because they are (or kinda-sorta seem to be) running together. If anyone has any insight on that question, I'd love to hear it.

  5. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    162
    Kind of a shame that opposing Clark and Buchholz posts are disappearing, yet multiple avatars of a singular personality seemingly control the discussion of this thread.

  6. #21
    Forum Hall of Famer DTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    3,265
    come March there will be a a League of Women Voters forum. From their website:

    Candidate Forums for Local Elections
    Come see the candidates running in the April 2 local elections for school board (D41 and D87), Park District and COD Board of Trustees

    March 16, 2019 beginning at 9 AM (watch this space for the schedule by race) Glen Ellyn Historical Society at 800 N. Main Street Parking available at the Historical Society, Stacey’s Tavern, Forest Glen and District 41 Administration Offices

  7. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by DTM View Post
    come March there will be a a League of Women Voters forum. From their website:
    Hopefully this year the league will ask some budget/financial questions because if memory serves me correctly there were none at the last school board election forum.

    Even slates don't agree on all issues, although they might have similar big picture objectives. The fact that the bottom 3 claim not to be a slate, but campaign together makes me weary of them. Just be honest about your intent. Slates don't have to agree on all issues. That's not why you form a slate. If you're all trying to get elected you have a bigger picture in mind. It seems from their supporters the common intent is to just get anyone there besides Clark or Buchholz.

    Buttimer publicly comments at about every board meeting so it's easy to know where she stands. "Get all the money you can get no matter what." She also says things similar to, "It's only $80 dollars on your tax bill so it's not a big deal...." That was her angle when the board was debating what amount to seek for referendum and debating the levy amount.

    I've only seen Hill speak once at a board meeting for Moms Demand Gun Action. Haven't ever seen Estes. So I guess time will tell their position on issues. In looking at their websites, there's not much to help paint the picture. Estes is the only one that seems to broach the subject of finances responsibly. Oh, and Hill wants full-day kindergarten.
    Last edited by innovator; 02-07-2019 at 05:57 PM.

  8. #23
    Forum Regular - Vociferous Class
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Solak View Post
    maxing the levy "because we can"
    A true question for you Bob as I know you have experience in this arena.

    If you had a policy to "Max your Levy" every year to retain your potential levy year to year, and abated money at the end of the school year if not necessary, would that assuage your fear of this statement? Just curious.

    What do you see as the potential pitfalls of the above scenario?

  9. #24
    Forum Regular - Vociferous Class
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by innovator View Post
    It seems from their supporters the common intent is to just get anyone there besides Clark or Buchholz.
    Bingo - At least from this supporter ( The devil you don't know........)

  10. #25
    Forum Regular Wm. Schumacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Glen Ellyn
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by GE Love View Post
    Join the club........"I don't really care, I could go fishing".
    If anyone is confused about either the “go fishing” comment or about TT being the driving force behind letting Gordon go, it’s documented here:
    http://chronicleillinois.com/news/du...uperintendent/



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #26
    Forum Regular - Vociferous Class
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by innovator View Post
    As far as the candidates, working together & playing nice is one thing, but what are they working towards should be your bigger concern. Buttimer is aligned with......
    What a foolhardy assumption....That would be like me saying Clarkhholz is aligned with Cooper and Ladesic. They are aligned with the Tea Party ******, therefore they are Tea Party ***!

    They should all work together, with respect to the community, like their code of conduct states.
    Last edited by admin; 02-11-2019 at 07:34 AM. Reason: removed incendiary words; kept rest for the "guilt by association" argument

  12. #27
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In the ether
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
    Kind of a shame that opposing Clark and Buchholz posts are disappearing, yet multiple avatars of a singular personality seemingly control the discussion of this thread.
    What went missing was a little flame war about grammar, punctuation and SAT scores, Stephen.

  13. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    What went missing was a little flame war about grammar, punctuation and SAT scores, Stephen.
    Maybe so, but others having nothing to do with those topics went missing...

  14. #29
    Forum Regular Bob Solak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by GE Love View Post
    A true question for you Bob as I know you have experience in this arena.

    If you had a policy to "Max your Levy" every year to retain your potential levy year to year, and abated money at the end of the school year if not necessary, would that assuage your fear of this statement? Just curious.

    What do you see as the potential pitfalls of the above scenario?
    Quote Originally Posted by GE Love View Post
    A true question for you Bob as I know you have experience in this arena.

    If you had a policy to "Max your Levy" every year to retain your potential levy year to year, and abated money at the end of the school year if not necessary, would that assuage your fear of this statement? Just curious.

    What do you see as the potential pitfalls of the above scenario?
    This is a cut and paste from an old post of mine

    I believe I'm on record somewhere with suggesting 1) the levy/budget cycle is a bit bass ackwards and 2) maximizing a levy would be OK IF a Board were to later compensate the community by returning, in perpetuity, what they do not need.

    The levy calendar demands that a levy decision be made in December, approximately 9 months before a budget is approved that will use those dollars. So in other words, you make the revenue decision 9 months before you make the expenditure vote.

    There are different ways to attack that problem. One is to make two year budget estimates so that you can tighten up your levy request. Another is to balloon levy and then abate after your budget is approved. The later assumes that government entities won't do what government entities have done for time immemorial - namely find something to spend surpluses on. So it's dangerous, of course, and would need leadership (Board or administration) that is able/willing to budget hawk. The former also has difficulties, since projecting out has inherent problems. Although it is arguable that an entity where the vast majority of expenses are known (the headcount only fluctuates a little bit year to year, barring new programs) should be capable of a pretty tight two year budget.

    For my part, I asked the administration about the possibility of two-year budgeting and it went nowhere. The Boards I served on had no desire to abate anything.

    In addition to that, if you actually go to the levy presentations for the time I was on the Board, and you read through the documents, you will find no justification for the levy amounts requested. The recommendations are all along the lines of: "Our calculations show that we'll be eligible to tax X dollars. So we'll ask for X+Y." That was it. It wasn't "we project we'll need X dollars". It was all about what is available to the District.
    There is another option which a Board did a few years ago, and that is to abate out of the Bond and Interest Fund. We need to get into the weeds a little bit here, but a school district's levy is actually several levies into several different funds. The biggest piece of the pie by far is the Education Fund. But there are also the Bond & Interest Fund, the Transportation Fund, and a few others.

    When the County Clerk determines how large a "max levy" is allowed to be, it bases its calculation on the previous year's levies into certain funds MINUS any money that was abated. However it does NOT look at the Bond & Interest Fund. So if you abate out of the Ed Fund, you decrease the allowable "max levy" for the following year. This is the reason behind the argument that NOT maxing a levy hamstrings future levies. And that's true. But in my opinion, it SHOULD work that way. That's the whole spirit of the tax cap - to slow down the growth of our tax burden.

    So back to the "other option". What a District can do is abate money out of the Bond & Interest Fund. That way the unused tax dollars are returned, but the following year's total levy amount can be higher. The District just has to play a little shell game and move money from the Ed Fund into the Bond & Interest Fund in order to pay off the bond debt. A district can ONLY levy into the Bond & Interest Fund an amount equal to the bond debt that a district has to pay off. So it's not a fund that changes much year to year (assuming that the bond repayment schedule has been set up at a fixed amount, like our mortgages). This is why, when taxing bodies have bond payment schedules that are nearing their end, they see a golden opportunity to run a referendum to borrow more money and claim that it will be a "zero tax increase" referendum - as if it's free money. But that's a story for another day.

    If I had to rank the options as most preferable to least, I would say

    1) Two-year budgeting and levying to what you think you need
    2) Over-levying and abating from the Ed Fund once you pass your budget
    3) Over-levying and abating from the Bond and Interest Fund

    And I would add that "over-levying" doesn't have to mean "max levy". With a two-year budget you could come up with a "best guess" of X dollars, and then "over-levy" for X+10% or something like that. Maybe that 10% kicks you into max levy territory, maybe it doesn't. It would all depend upon the CPI and the Dupage Clerk's calculations. But at least the process would be based on what you think the actual need is - not just a "let's get every dollar the law allows" mantra.

  15. #30
    Forum Regular - Vociferous Class
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    514
    Thanks Bob. Got anything important to do over the next 4 years?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •