Just to add some context to the discussion around technology. I do support all of the ideas in the Screen Sense pledge and want to move forward on several of them right away, but I felt I needed a little bit more information or clarity around others.
Kicking myself a little for missing the deadline on this but I had my daughter’s birthday party to supervise and the trampolines were calling to me. I loved reading the other candidates’ responses, though.
Hey Tom! This is awesome and so helpful. I really appreciate all of the work you’ve done. I am dying to know who you’re voting for but I respect your privacy. 👍🏻
Three part question here for any/all candidates following that may not have taken over the Substack or filled out questionnaires on this: Do you support a full and complete & independent financial “forensic” audit of D65, going back to when the last referendum was passed—in order to get a handle on what has happened in D65 financially? And then, importantly share the findings with the community via open house two way Q&A forums? If you support, can we get your commitment to call for this at the first BOE meeting you attend as a new BOE member?
Thanks in advance to all of the candidates for running & engaging with the community—and as always, thanks to Tom for affording us all the chance to engage directly with candidates.
I'm not trying to make excuses for candidates by any means. But let's just say theoretically that all 12 make this commitment you are requesting. 4 get elected, and then do not follow through on this commitment. Instead of saying they're all frauds, let's assume they know something that we don't. An ongoing investigation could also explain why an audit hasn't already been proposed by the sitting board or Supt.
Hi. I never suggested that I’d call them frauds—not sure where you got them from. Asking a question like this and seeing the responses provides a voters a window into their thinking and how seriously they take the issue etc. And frankly, if they promised something and then didn’t deliver, they’d be held accountable to that like any politician/public servant and could honestly and easily explain if there was a good reason. Not sure what I’m missing.
PS —I’ll add that how money was spent, what money has gone missing, how we plowed thru the money that the taxpayers voted to give the district per the last referendum, etc. —we’re entitled to know that information as tax payers and members of this community. I don’t see how any of that would require closed door meetings etc.
I don't mean to diss your post or make assumptions about you personally. I'm speaking to the broader readership. There is value to hearing candidate responses. But I hope people understand there will always be information protected by law that boards and admin can't talk about. So if we try to hold the board accountable, they can't say, "there is a pending investigation." All they can say is "no comment" which will likely get everyone all riled up and left dissatisfied.
I think the idea of a forensic audit is great, but we need to consider the possibility that there could already be an investigation underway. There have been rumors flying for a long time. The new board will have to have a closed door meeting with Supt and cabinet and ask their questions. If there is a legal/criminal investigation/audit in process it will be opaque and the new board will be prohibited from talking about it publicly. So we as a community need to prepare ourselves for that possibility and show some grace if we don't see the new board come out swinging for an audit. We can't just assume that nobody is doing anything about it.
Hi Kim, I support a criminal complaint against Horton by the Board. Ideally, this complaint would come from the current Board as it happened during that Board's term. This would add legitimacy to the complaint.
If a subsequent board comes in and opens this up, it could be interpreted as a political move – like we are indicting the past board for not doing a good job (which I don’t think they did). We could be wasting time looking back and fighting about the past instead of focusing on the large tasks we have in the present.
Thank you for putting in what I'm sure were hours of discussion with these candidates and then writing it up. You did a huge public service for Evanston/Skokie residents, parents, future parents and people like me whose children are in their 40s now. Thank you, Tom.
Just to add some context to the discussion around technology. I do support all of the ideas in the Screen Sense pledge and want to move forward on several of them right away, but I felt I needed a little bit more information or clarity around others.
Kicking myself a little for missing the deadline on this but I had my daughter’s birthday party to supervise and the trampolines were calling to me. I loved reading the other candidates’ responses, though.
Hey Tom! This is awesome and so helpful. I really appreciate all of the work you’ve done. I am dying to know who you’re voting for but I respect your privacy. 👍🏻
I don’t have not received my absentee ballot yet but Tom has been so helpful with all of this.
Very very helpful. Thank you.
Interesting to see that millionaire investment banker Chuck Lewis gave $5000 to both Pinkhard and Opdyke over the last few weeks.
Three part question here for any/all candidates following that may not have taken over the Substack or filled out questionnaires on this: Do you support a full and complete & independent financial “forensic” audit of D65, going back to when the last referendum was passed—in order to get a handle on what has happened in D65 financially? And then, importantly share the findings with the community via open house two way Q&A forums? If you support, can we get your commitment to call for this at the first BOE meeting you attend as a new BOE member?
Thanks in advance to all of the candidates for running & engaging with the community—and as always, thanks to Tom for affording us all the chance to engage directly with candidates.
I'm not trying to make excuses for candidates by any means. But let's just say theoretically that all 12 make this commitment you are requesting. 4 get elected, and then do not follow through on this commitment. Instead of saying they're all frauds, let's assume they know something that we don't. An ongoing investigation could also explain why an audit hasn't already been proposed by the sitting board or Supt.
Hi. I never suggested that I’d call them frauds—not sure where you got them from. Asking a question like this and seeing the responses provides a voters a window into their thinking and how seriously they take the issue etc. And frankly, if they promised something and then didn’t deliver, they’d be held accountable to that like any politician/public servant and could honestly and easily explain if there was a good reason. Not sure what I’m missing.
PS —I’ll add that how money was spent, what money has gone missing, how we plowed thru the money that the taxpayers voted to give the district per the last referendum, etc. —we’re entitled to know that information as tax payers and members of this community. I don’t see how any of that would require closed door meetings etc.
I don't mean to diss your post or make assumptions about you personally. I'm speaking to the broader readership. There is value to hearing candidate responses. But I hope people understand there will always be information protected by law that boards and admin can't talk about. So if we try to hold the board accountable, they can't say, "there is a pending investigation." All they can say is "no comment" which will likely get everyone all riled up and left dissatisfied.
I think the idea of a forensic audit is great, but we need to consider the possibility that there could already be an investigation underway. There have been rumors flying for a long time. The new board will have to have a closed door meeting with Supt and cabinet and ask their questions. If there is a legal/criminal investigation/audit in process it will be opaque and the new board will be prohibited from talking about it publicly. So we as a community need to prepare ourselves for that possibility and show some grace if we don't see the new board come out swinging for an audit. We can't just assume that nobody is doing anything about it.
😬😬😬😬😬😬😬😬😬😬😬😬😬
Sorry if I missed this but does Lyonsmith support a criminal complaint against Horton? Or did some candidates not answer this question?
Hi Kim, I support a criminal complaint against Horton by the Board. Ideally, this complaint would come from the current Board as it happened during that Board's term. This would add legitimacy to the complaint.
If a subsequent board comes in and opens this up, it could be interpreted as a political move – like we are indicting the past board for not doing a good job (which I don’t think they did). We could be wasting time looking back and fighting about the past instead of focusing on the large tasks we have in the present.
Thanks, Dan. I support your candidacy and wish you well.
Also, please know that if the prospective board is unwilling to sign a criminal complaint against Horton, I would be willing to sign as a taxpayer.😃
He didn't complete the survey, so I don't know
Thank you for putting in what I'm sure were hours of discussion with these candidates and then writing it up. You did a huge public service for Evanston/Skokie residents, parents, future parents and people like me whose children are in their 40s now. Thank you, Tom.