We'll see how long this thread lasts before it gets shut down. Since no one else has started the conversation, I might as well.
Candidates for D41 are: Clark, Buchholz, Hill, Buttimer and Estes.
Does anyone know if Clark and Buchholz are running as a slate again? I haven't seen anything from them, but would assume that they are.
It appears that the Hill, Estes and Buttimer are. Take a look at this.
Although, their supporters seem to fervently oppose the "slate" strategy and have continually ridiculed anyone who runs as a slate as closed-minded, can't think on their own, etc.... If you are definitively trying to all get elected, making stickers, using the tag line "vote the bottom 3", isn't that a slate? Just because you have separate websites isn't fooling anyone, is it?
IMG_6385.jpg
The slate vs the "non-slate"? Sounds like a rehash of 2015...speaking of 2015, it's interesting how "non-slate" candidate Buttimer "Melania Trump"ed her talking points on her website. Below is an example of the postcard we sent out four years ago next to her website:
CBRvsButt.jpg
Buttimer should be known for 2 things that she has said at a board meeting. Said at different meetings--
1-She said that a 'couple hundred dollar tax decrease is insignificant'. To my recollection, that may be an exact quote, from before the 2017 ref.
2-She said that he(me) has cost the district $15,000. I believe the figure was $15,000. It was said at a meeting in the Hadley library. It was the first time that I had heard someone fire on a community member. I had always kept it to board members or school personnel. I challenged her to produce some proof of her allegation. I'm still waiting. Also, waiting, though not actively, for an apology.
So, she essentially could give a rip about Joe Taxpayer. And, speaking the truth is not a strong point.
Also, she was one of the 17 names whose information was sought by 41 Forward in the 2017 ref BS effort. I maintain, and no one has ever argued this point with me, that the heads of 41 Forward, or at least one, was familiar with her and using her name was just part of the ruse to get the file of thousands that they got.
Maybe the points needed reiterating because the Clarkhholz slate didn't live up to their promises on their postcard. Maybe the ideal is accurate, just the people who implement them can't/won't follow them. Sorry I don't have marked up PDF's of that old postcard to mark up, but you can look a the line directly above, "Willing to listen"????? Who was more full of doo doo and came up with that lie?Originally Posted by Kevin Rath
Ackerman:
I will be voting for Clark. There is a 0.0% chance I would ever vote for Buchholz.
Given those truths, and presuming I want to cast all three votes, where should my other two votes go? And why?
You spend an egregious amount of time on this (some could argue that if you spent 1/2 the time driving an Uber or something else like that, you'd more than make up the $100 tax bill increase but that's neither here nor there), interested in your perspective.
Thanks you.
GE Fan
Assuming that you are voting for Clark but wouldn't vote for Buchholz, I would just vote for Clark. One of the other three is getting in as there are 3 spots open. Buttimer shouldn't be on any public board, period. Estes, well my personal dealings with him on the Facilities Committee left me feeling that he was totally disingenuous and I wouldn't want to see him on a public board, either. Hill, I heard her speak at one board meeting. After hearing her, I though she was sounding like a Buttimer clone.
Essentially, I wouldn't vote for any of those 3, period.
When someone doesn't agree with "you" in this town, why do we jump to "They aren't listening." There are many different opinions in Glen Ellyn clearly. You can't assume the people that show up to the meetings to complain represent the community. Case in point. The D41 referendum. The community members that spoke at the board meeting were livid that the board wasn't going to seek the full amount in bonds. They insisted they represented the majority of the community (in their minds). The board didn't "listen" to them, used some common sense and went for a lesser amount that barely passed. If they had "listened" I guarantee Hadley would still have portables.
As far as Buttimer. Copying Clark, Buchholz and Rath doesn't surprise me. No original thoughts from her. She's like a sound bite. She really has no platform from what I can see except she'll max out our taxes.
Not sure what your criteria is for voting, but it seem to me to be shaping up that Clark and Buchholz are going to have a completely different school of thought than Hill, Estes or Buttimer. It seems you'd vote for one camp or the other.
Clearly, there will always be 2 camps of thought on issues. The referendum won, so clearly there was a majority. We will never know what the entire D41 community thinks on an issue because there are so few people actually paying attention. Who can whip up the biggest frenzy over an issue probably prevails. Clarkhholz resonated with a group of people that were dissatisfied with the current Board, not necessarily just a tax issue. Rath fits into the Cooper camp as a loser in this split vote equation, so it wasn't a unanimous process.
I agree, at 40+M, that ref probably does not pass. Clarkhholz voted to go to ref at the 24M. That was probably the last compromise we have seen from the D41 Board. Pete Ladesic whipped up tax/spend frenzy to combat the referendum to remove portables frenzy (Although that is giving him too much credit). In this case, one small frenzy prevailed over a slightly smaller frenzy. Maybe if we all "Listened" to each other, instead of the boorish, vindictive way the current majority has acted, we might see that compromise more often. Shouldn't always have to be one Frenzy over another. Maybe that is The Glen Ellyn Way™
Good thing this vote will shape up to a very simple decision. Do you value well funded schools and civility on the Board,(Buttimer, Estes, Hill) or do you value vindictive, non-transparent, power hungry, I know best unrest for 4 more years, (Clarkhholz).
Wow...🍬🧔🏻
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.
Last edited by GE Fan; 02-07-2019 at 11:31 AM. Reason: Typo
The schools are well funded now. If you mean that Buttimer, etc. would try to grab as much as possible for whatever they want and might borrow to your idea of well funded, that does scare me. I see Buttimer or Hill, or for that matter Estes, having no regard for the taxpayers. As far as the civility and the rest of your nonsense, I don't feel that being lied to or being taxed to the max levy if not needed is civil. Vindictive? Non-transparent? You mean like not allowing board members to listen to closed sessions before they were on the board? Power hungry is spelled N-E-L-S-O-N.Good thing this vote will shape up to a very simple decision. Do you value well funded schools and civility on the Board,(Buttimer, Estes, Hill) or do you value vindictive, non-transparent, power hungry, I know best unrest for 4 more years, (Clarkhholz).
You say unrest, I say BS. I see a board after the election, led by Clark, Buchholz, Currie and D'Ambrosio, that will keep D41 a top rated district. I can't imagine a board led by Bob Bruno. This community is better than that. We have 4 intelligent and thoughtful board members that have been looking out for us.
To me, vindictiveness is dripping from your posts, Love. Trading in either Clark or Buchholz for any of those 3 is like switching filet mignon for Alpo. Anyone that does their homework will stick with the filet.
Yep. I hate being lied to.
No matter what anyone posts our here about candidates, GE Love is going to deflect and say that his candidates the Slate/Non-Slate of Hill, Estes, Buttimer are amazing.
He deflected from the fact that Buttimer flat out copied her campaign talking points from Clark, Buchholz and Rath. Now he's picking on Rath. Kind of pathetic. Stick to the topic, GE Love.
GE Love - I'm still not sure how you were lied to. Apparently Clark and Buchholz aren't listening to your every whim? Is that it? So you want them listening, but only to you?
Last edited by innovator; 02-07-2019 at 04:12 PM. Reason: trying to play nice
Posting Permissions
