I was surprised on Monday at the BOE meeting when Walsh announced the committees because at the last meeting both Berhens and Cullick said that it did not work in the past. They said that some topics like finance and boundaries/growth really needed all board members involved. Did I miss additional discussions - was this something that was discussed in closed session?

With committees and the Open Meetings Act, the public and press will have access to information before the board members not on the specific committee. I am not saying this is a bad thing but it was an objection by board members at the last meeting and according to them, a issue for the past board members.

Within the Board of Education Policy manual there's already standing committees in place. Mr. Walsh as Board President has the authority to appoint to these committees. Hopefully the links works.

http://intranet.oswego308.org/districtinformation/boardofeducation/pdf/policies/section2/2-150_Committees.pdf

http://intranet.oswego308.org/districtinformation/boardofeducation/pdf/policies/section2/2-110_QualificationsTermandDutiesofBoardOfficers.pdf

They do work if members put the effort into it. It was also stated by Ms. Cullick that the committee of the whole wasn't working either at the end of her term.

Personally, I see this as a good thing.

Thank you for the info, Paul. I was just surprised that there was no more discussion on it after there were differing opinions on the board about what specific committees needed all board members "in the know" so to speak. Hopefully the board members can attend the important committees like growth and finance.

After viewing your links - do you happen to know why we don't have a board treasurer? It's listed in the link you have above but we only have a secretary, vice president and president.

Interesting related article in the Ledger Sentinel today - "County board debates committee changes" - Kendall County State's Attorney Eric Weis advised our County Board against 3-person committees (our School Board is proposing a two person structure) because of the possibility of violations of the Open Meetings Act. He said "with three-member committees if two members are talking about an issue from the committee a quorum would be present and those talks would be subject to the Open Meetings Act." I assume this is what Dr. O'Donnell was cautioning about. Mr. Weis recommended a minimum of five members per committee - obviously that puts the School Board back to the COW structure. I may be reading this wrong or do not understand the law as it applies to our School Board - hopefully someone here will advise. A good article - no link yet or I'd share.

All committees are open to the Open Meetings act, regardless if there's 1 or all 7 members present. The same rules apply to posting 48 hours in advanced, having an agenda and such.

Thanks Paul - I just wanted to pass along Mr. Weis' comments in the context of the old Board members practical concerns about the committee structure off the past (inefficient communications) and wise words of caution from Dr. O'Donnell. Perhaps Mr. Walsh will organize and publish a committee plan such as this: http://goo.gl/2NFJC That would be welcomed...

Committees are a great way to delegate and compartmentalize work. But they have their caveats. One major one being that when a committee reports back to the group as a whole, they are providing summaries and recommendations based on research and conversations they have had addressing an issue. Summaries are not the same as first hand accounts.

I'll ask a question -- Can we expect this board to receive recommendations untainted by board members who actively campaigned against the third high school in their election?

While committees are a good idea, this board needs to knuckle down and work as a unified group, hear first hand reports and information as a group, and work as a group to answering this overwhelmingly important issue.

Lastly, spitting into committees makes it very difficult for the public to follow this type of issue cohesively. While it might be easy for a person to take time away from family to go to one board meeting that will address a topic, it will be very difficult for a person to go to 6 different meetings potentially on 6 different nights in six different locations.

Thanks Mr. Lark, your information is very helpful. This is an opportunity to try something new that can provide direction. I see (not feel) confidence in the direction of sustainability.

Thanks again,

Jerri

Fox and friends report a school district building schools that they can not afford to open. Alvord county California Superintendent Wendel Tucker. They are broke also.

jerri

Fox and friends report a school district building schools that they can not afford to open. Alvord county California Superintendent Wendel Tucker. They are broke also.

jerri

There was a misunderstanding of what Lynn Cullick said regarding committees. Aafter Dave Behrens said individual committees did not work she said the Committee of the Whole had not been working either. I take exception to Behrens' comment because during the 8 years that I was on the board indidvidual committees did work when the committee members worked. Regarding the Open Meeting Act when the number on a committee or members at a committee meeting is equal to the majority of a quorum it then becomes subject to the Open Meeting Act and for the school board that would be 3 since a quorum of the board is 4. Regardless the committee meetings do have to be announced 48hours in advance and minutes of the meetings are required. Regarding the continual comments about overcrowding it would be good if the persons who believe that would carefully analize the numbers on Fast Facts for each level and the number of school buildings for each level. The result is that if boundaries had been planned correctly there would not be overcrowding. A question for Karin McCarthy-lange if you do not have the money for a larger house what do you do? On April 5 there was an election that overwhelmingly elected three candidates that oppose building a third high school. When will the few who want a school the district cannot afford to build or operate accept the election results?

Leeland your definition of "overwhelmingly" is an interesting one. I'd call a 16% turn out countywide apathetic at best. To clarify, two candidates openly oppose the third high school (Walsh/Lightfoot), the third (Swanson) said that enrollment projections need to be reviewed something currently being done.

I like this question better - If you know you are going to have four cars in three years, is it better to spend the money to renovate your two car garage into a three car garage knowing that you will have to turn around and pay to do it again to house that 4th car?

We all want fiscal responsibility, something that I know you are for based on your previous writings (http://bit.ly/jgQzXI) and (http://bit.ly/lSuwGH). Back then you felt it was outrageous to pay $57 million to add a mere 600 student capacity, yet you are for similar additions now without solid data that supports whether these additions would be sufficient.

Considering that in 2007 you recommended building new schools over additions that had marginal impact on capacity the person you seem most at odds with is yourself.

Hello,

To respond to you Karin, I can simply put it as using what you have currently to its fullest potential. Debt normally creates problems. Young folks can learn a lot of economics and finances through that process. This is almost a culture problem. As you stated you looked up the fox and friends empty school report and recently in the beacon there is an additional article on taxpayer's reaction to spending. This should not be an emotional problem. Financial facts are bleak and you can not spend your way out of it.
I am very confident that the current board will make those tough decisions.

Actually in the sun times this past Sunday there is an article on our college students having trouble with basic skills in reading. That is where our focus should be is on the education itself. Students should be able to look back and say "where I grew up I learned my academics". I am not personally impressed with this school district compared to any other one. Once high school graduation happens education becomes a huge melting pot. What prevails on is the skills in life to adjust. Showing students now how to make good use of what you have is in part where that lesson is unveiled.

Dear Stephen Lange, Are you aware that this is a public place to discuss crucial topics that effects many households. I once noted that with all the yelling, screaming and now such a derogatory tone one can become tone deaf. In the future I will bypass your responses.

Good Day,

Jerri

Mr Powell, I'm sorry you found my comments derogatory, they were not. My concern was, and is that the board, the full board get all the facts. If you find my questioning of this move by the board not to your liking, that is your right, just as questioning it is mine.

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels--men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight D. Eisenhower, May 31, 1954

I'll ask a question -- Can we expect this board to receive recommendations untainted by board members who actively campaigned against the third high school in their election?

Wouldn't the correct question be -- Can we expect this board to receive recommendations untainted by members who actively campaigned againt the third high school and those who voted against the third high school?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as it stands now you have 6 members who said or voted they're against it and 1 who voted for it.

Also, there's rumors who think she's the swing vote. Let me link a patch article. That's where she stands on the 3rd High School.

http://oswego.patch.com/local_facts/election-2011-alison-swanson

It's a slow news day so I might as well help.

The current Board just spent nearly $100,000 to update the data set for a decision on the third high-school. They clearly did that on the premise that it will inform their decision to overturn/not overturn the prior Boards' decision. To me this seems open-minded and runs counter to any idea that their decision is pre-determined. It also aligns with what I heard during the candidate forum I attended. Not one candidate said that anything like 'no amount of data could persuade me to favor the high-school' In fact, the opposite is true - they all professed a willingness to work with the Administration, to understand the prior Boards' decision and if necessary, refreshing the data in order to make a rational decision.

I say let's allow them the courtesy of viewing the data they paid for and watch the decision process unfold publicly - I think we diminish their service if we suggest their votes are predetermined. I grant them the benefit of the doubt that they can give this decision a fair shake. We shall see...

If there's one thing I've learned about politics, it's that Campaigning and Reality once in office rarely go hand-in-hand. In this case, I would say if nothing else - the campaign messaging served as a goal post of what they were willing to do vs. unwilling to do (or question). There in lies a major difference.

So for the moment, I'm going to stand with Mr. Reed and say that surely our 'fiscally responsible' board wouldn't waste $100K if their intention was to do exactly what they campaigned on. In particular, Mrs. Swanson, whom I believe still stands alone. And Mr. Walsh, whom stands the lose the most if the plan fails.

However, I would have to ask if they've spent any time, simultaneously examining the 3rd build to see where costs could be cut. Because that is an impacting comparison if they're getting new bids on additions, we should also be getting revised bids on the 3rd and then compare.

Karin and Stephen Lange, Thank you for confirming that you are a married couple. Karin I am glad that you have stated that you adjusted your spending when you bought a larger house which means you had the money to do that. In the case of District 308 they do not have the money to operate what they currently have, proven by borrowing $10 Million in each of the last two years to finish the school year. Secondly the revenues projected to pay for building bonds has not been met and is continuing to decrease which means the money is not available to build the planned third high school. Regarding Stephen's rejection of my use of overwhelming, I will stand by my comment because of the people who cared enough to be informed and vote it was overwhelming. Further your comment that only two elected are oppossed to the third high school, I hope you have read the Patch link that Paul Lark listed to clarify that it is three elected that oppose the third high school. Your links would not come up but it must have been my objection to $57 million proposed to add to OHS. That is more than current estimates for additions on two high school so y0u seem to be confused in your reasoning. I do not remember advocating building more schools at that time but the economy was intirely different in 2007. It is questionable that financially any building including additions can be accomplished.

Hey Leland thanks for the reply. Im sorry my links didnt work. Karin and I are married and she is a saint for putting up with me. My comment about it being apathetic was really about the overall turnout. The fact that we live in a democracy and people choose not to vote is apalling to me. But a win is a win. At this point I just hope the board looks at all the data, talks to all the experts and comes to a decision thats supported by the data. I can't believe that they would spend the kind of money they are on updates etc. if that wasn't their intention. The nice thing is, even though we might not agree on things, at least we can have an open conversation about it. That's more than we can say about some of our state's elected officials.