Hi everyone. Christopher DeNardo, candidate for school board here. I attended a training session for potential candidates for IL office put on by the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. The session covered the process of challenging a candidate filing and went over a few example cases. Based on what I learned, challenging a candidate's filing is more common in larger, partisan races, such as those for state senate. It is not uncommon for challenges to take place even within a party primary. However, the examples were all from races that required hundreds of petition signatures to gain ballot access, not the 50 required for non-partisan, local school board races.
I would be curious to know the reasons why these three candidates were targeted and if we can expect more challenges coming in the future. The challenge process is a legitimate tool to combat fraud and a candidate filing should be strong enough to withstand a challenge. Even so, these tactics seem a little too "big-league" for a local school board race.
Full disclosure, Brandon Utter and I are both Bessie Rhodes parents and I can attest that he is indeed a legitimate resident of Evanston/District 65.
Weingarden Was also on current board member May Wilkins’ campaign payroll last year so these objections automatically make these candidates more interesting to me.
Anyone the old guard is against is worth taking seriously in my view.
FFS, is this really necessary? What’s in it for him? Not to go down the rabbit hole (too late) but it’s interesting and I’m sure totally coincidental that Weingarden’s background overlaps quite neatly with another candidate in the running. Rabbit holed. Regardless of what or who is behind this, it stinks of the worst kind of politics - something we really don’t need right now
I know!! That's what I told Neal, and when I realized he was definitely going to file the week before, I called all of the candidates he was targeting and made sure they knew what was coming.
well, we are colleagues and friends! he came to me out of professional courtesy, I then went and let Brandon and Anita and Peter know. there was still a chance he wouldnt file, but as I told them - if they were my client I wouldn't want to get blindsided
Neal told me today he is gonna talk at length with EvanstonNow, the Roundtable, and Tom. He can get into it. I know he is a stickler for rules and he can take process problems way personally. There was a point where he suggested he was going to challenge my petitions because my personal signature at the clerks office doesn't match the signature on my candidate forms.
Would love for you to share his email where he told you he was going to challenge your petitions or was it more of a nudge wink kind of thing. And in the end why didn’t he challenge your petitions but went ahead with the other challenges? Seems odd.
Not an email, was a phone call. He didn't challenge mine nor another technicality nor the five he felt were short on petition signatures. I asked him, he said he was going to move forward, so I did what I thought was the best possible thing - get a hold of the potential targets and let them know this could be coming. I looked at it as what is pretty typical for a board member: a partner/colleague you don't control (a superintendent, a teacher, a fellow board member) is about to do something that isn't helpful (like close two grades of a school in October). Rather than run away and hide, I mitigated, and now I'm being publicly accessible despite having no control (and not pretending despite lacking control I can avoid responsibility).
The irony here is that if I HAD hired Neal, I could tell him what to do! Paying for a sin of pride in running my campaign solo, its a funny thing.
Would appreciate a full explanation of your relationship with Weingarten. Not to mention a full explanation of your role in the DPOE and if you played a role in endorsements of sitting D65 board members.
The problem w DPOE endorsements of non-partisan positions in a one-party town is that they aren’t pushing out “Republicans” but instead pushing out anyone whose viewpoints don’t mirror the party line/group think. And in the last 7 years or so that narrowness within the DPOE and among Evanston’s most politically active residents has led to disastrous educational policies that have hurt all Evanston children. These bad policies have included eliminating differentiated math instruction, discouraging the use of disciplinary consequences when kids hurt other kids, failing to take fiduciary responsibilities seriously, failing to support the district’s bilingual magnet school, and keeping schools closed longer than necessary during covid. If Evanston wants competitive public education, it also has to have competitive non-partisan elections again. This hopefully includes an openness to both people with financial expertise and to parents who have witnessed what works and what doesn’t at the school level.
This is a fair point - I think the DPOE has had as few as 175ish dues-paying members in recent years after a recent high water mark of 750+ members in the immediate 2017 post Trump 45 election. I agree that we have been narrow and have been trying to broaden the org in all directions, both against and in favor of the points you are raising, but one other note - education is only one policy topic and infrequently the highest priority.
So broadening DPOE’s perspective would be refreshing. As you note, Evanston has 32,000 Democrats and only around 175 people belong to the DPOE. We might get somewhere if the org could acknowledge mistakes in the positions its candidates have taken on education policy in recent years, including being upfront about policy changes that have been accompanied by drops in student test scores and the financial mismanagement that was initiated and continues on the watch of DPOE-endorsed candidates. DPOE should not be a gatekeeper. If it wants to grow there should be more reflection about mistakes and how to be more responsive to a much wider swath of Democrats. And for many non-DPOE Democrats, academic excellence in K-8 public schools is a huge priority. But if DPOE is just endorsing more of the same faux-Progressive takes that got us into insolvency and slipping rankings, or being vague to avoid having to renounce choices that haven’t worked out for students, why would more people join at this point?
I wouldn't hold your breath. If you look at the DPOE board you have multiple people who have lost municipal elections which suggests to me that the views of those people are out of touch with the greater electorate in Evanston.
Obviously there are more people on the board than a handful of failed candidates--you have successful candidates like Biss & Mendoza--so maybe there is more diversity in opinion, but who knows.
My sense is that the vast majority of Evanstonians don't even know the DPOE exists, let alone that they act as gatekeepers. So I am not worried about their niche concerns and positions all that much.
as far as the individuals who won the endorsement of the DPOE, I am going to point out that the DPOE endorsement process is a 66% plus vote of present membership - I don't think all of the incumbents have been endorsed at that level. Our endorsement also used to come with mostly Votebuilder access as the primary prize (a database of registered voters kept by the party) but I don't recall it being used very much. Again, I was more focused on the municipal side of the last two April election cycles, have not been as involved with D65 as my kids are only just now school aged and there were other voices in those rooms with kids in the district.
The DPOE endorsed Samantha Steele for the Board of Review. Last month she had a DUI incident where she damaged another car and used her position as an elected official to try and influence the cops.
Do you think she should step down? I have not seen any DPOE people comment at all on her dreadful behavior.
I do, and our next board meeting is Thursday, and I am going to make thd case that the org issue a statement. I have been an erstwhile supporter of Cmsr. Steele but it is unacceptable to put that office in this situation.
I mean, it is AMAZING that the DPOE hasn't issued anything. This happened almost a month ago. The dash cam video is DEVASTATING. She's drunk as a skunk, she had an open bottle of wine in the car, she was talking back to the cops, saying "I'm an elected official" while refusing to let them investigate the crash. She hit multiple cars. She asks the cops to call an ambulance and then when paramedics get there she says she doesn't want medical treatment.
This woman needs to have her drivers license revoked and spend some time in rehab.
Biss has time to send a letter reflecting on the election within days yet there is total silence for a month when a local elected goes on a mad drunk driving spree and uses her position to try and stop an investigation into the incident?
Here's the link to the video. It is wild and disturbing.
1. The 66% vote threshold for endorsement for the D65 election last cycle was 75 votes. This is in a City where Democrats at the top of the ticket in the November elections the last several elections have pulled +/- 90% of the vote.
For people who don't pay attention to what happens with D65 short of the kind of financial mismanagement that brings the District to the point of insolvency, the DPOE endorsement carries a lot of weight. In truth, it is the real insider's game - a primary that no one knows about.
2. Access to the Votebuilder is nice, but you left off the party-sponsored mailings, phone banking, and door knocking. Those are things that are much more valuable that use of a database that really only has value if you have resources (people and money) to make use of it. The DPOE endorsement provides both.
I'd be curious to know the history of DPOE endorsements in non-partisan elections. I've lived here for a while, and I only remember this happening (maybe?) in the past couple of elections. My sense is that it is a pretty recent thing. I could be wrong.
Before I had kids and paid attention, I would say that I would look at the teacher's union endorsements and usually vote their way.
Of course both the union and DPOE have been on the same page for the last couple of elections.
In general it has gone back and forth. The DPOE has an unfortunate habit of being run to benefit the individual political careers for folks on the board, no doubt I am guilty of that although I have tried to be fair and honest and never wanted to join (a story for a different thread.)
1,000,000 times this. DPOE is almost single handedly responsible for the last two rounds of BOE election results. Smearing any nonincumbents—I find their behavior abhorrent…all because of 75 votes —which are all acolytes of the some of the most problematic narcissists in this town. Shameful.
Not just in the fliers and endorsements, but in their candidate forums and the awful attacks they allows on their social media pages. Total garbage. Trust lost here and cannot see a time when I would ever consider joining —or trusting anything they put out.
again, I want to be super clear - there were NO dpoe sponsored mailers, canvassers, or phone banks. at most in 2021 under Greg Andrus running the now-disbanded Political Committee we let any endorsed candidate book space for their own phone banks? but I am actually unaware of a school board candidate using that feature, and now most campaigns dont even do physical phonebanks and do virtual only.
I know the brand endorsement carries some legitimacy! but again not every incumbent received that endorsement. I would love for it to be true that the DPOE endorsement swung the race but there is no data and no effort by DPOE to support that, so if the intangible brand value alone swung the election then I go back to those 75+ members (and that number was much higher in 2021 in my memory, over 110, but again I may be mistaken and those were the Mayor or Clerk numbers)
I believe the DPOE had fliers with recommended candidates for D65 and volunteers outside of polling places handing them out. I saw them when I was campaigning. Sergio Hernandez’s wife knocked on my door asking me to vote for her husband and it looked like they had address lists from the DPOE. As a registered Democrat I don’t trust the DPOE as far as I can throw them.
In the last election every D65 incumbent got the DPOE endorsement. And when you speak of the 75 people who “showed up” there was nowhere to show up to. You had to pay to join the DPOE and then you could vote via email on the D65 candidates. No meeting, no discussions, just pay to play. This was my experience as a volunteer on a challenger’s campaign the last election.
75 votes* of people who showed up! I am always embarrassed that in a town with 32,000 Democratic votes for President that it should be so low.
There were no party-sponsored mailings that I am aware of - we haven't done one in a few cycles. I agree on people and money, but the irony there is that we didn't offer either - no check and no volunteers.
Neal and I are friends and we work together. I told him this was a bad idea, I told him he probably loses at least two of three of these challenges.
I wasn't that involved in the 21 or 23 endorsement cycle planning, I was on the rotating crew of questioners but did not come up with the D65 questions as much as the municipal, but let me be clear - it is my personal and professional view that the DPOE *absolutely* should be endorsing candidates at all levels. The way Republicans get footholds is at the local often nonpartisan level and I am certainly partisan.
Hi Christian, Just curious: I was looking at your website and you indicate that you want "to rebuild trust in advance of potential capital expenditure referenda."
Does this mean you are in favor of a capital referendum to somehow supplant the lease certificates being used to fund the Fifth Ward school?
I have heard talk of another operations referendum, but I am not sure why we would need a capital referendum given that the Fifth Ward School operational budget raid has already left the barn.
If you are saying we could somehow pause new capital construction until a referendum passed (like they did in Wheaton), that is a good idea. But I am not sure how that interfaces with the lease certificates.
I think pause/restructure borrowing is a possibility, especially if we want to go back to K-8 model instead of the reduced K-5. I also am looking at data and studies on other schools that do alternative arrangements like K-2, 3-5, 6-8 buildings - we need to get competitive with local private and parochial offerings too. I am thinking in March of 2026 we may need to roll a "refinance" of the lease certs into bonds along with a larger deferred maintenance borrowing. This depends on the state of the budget in May and the new one in August too. Lots of possibilities there.
We need some of these candidates to drop out so the field narrows. Anyone the DPOE supports will be suspect on my list. I love how diplomatically Barry Doyle puts it when clarifying the DPOE role in these elections. I’ll put it more bluntly. It’s a sack of shite. I am looking forward to learning more about the challenges, but mostly about learning more about candidates from Tom. I think there should be some questions posed to all candidates. One I would ask would be “Are you going to be asking us to pony up cash via a referendum?” The second would be “What is your specific experience with finance and can you read a balance sheet?” Would also like to hear if other people have questions that should be asked across the board to all candidates.
Happy to be suspect, but also hope to get a fair hearing. I can understand skepticism from you, from Megan up above, from everyone here in Tom's ecosystem. I never wanted to run for D65, had a terrible time myself at Haven and had other political aspirations. Happy to show I can take criticism and respond like a board member should.
I'm trying to stay out of these conversations because I don't want to be seen as taking a side here.
But
One thing to keep in mind if you have other or future political aspirations is that the 2025 D65 Board job might be the worst possible job. For one, the current Board+Admin are kicking the can on everything until Jan 2025 and (I think) will probably just defer it all until April (I wouldn't blame them!). That means this next board will be responsible for:
1) Closing 2-3 Schools and taking the heat from that, including overseeing the final closing and sale of Bessie Rhodes.
2) Terminating a non-trivial number of Administrators; recall that we currently spent $15m/year on headcount vs $5m/year in 2016. This is not going to go smoothly!
3) Finishing or cancelling the Foster School. Any Board responsible for stopping this project can basically kiss their political aspirations goodbye. Finishing it means finding a way to locate $3.25m per year plus $6m in construction costs.
4) Potentially negotiating contracts with teachers (we still don't actually have a contract officially!)
OR even worse, if you can't do those things you'll be the board members responsible when the state takes over. Good luck running for dog catcher after that.
I literally can't think of a worse elected job in politics. If you have any long-term career aspirations in politics, you may want to stay away for your own sake. I think it's easy to be like "this is a good opportunity to be a hero" and maybe that's true, but the numbers don't lie.
This isn't a hero move - I am not a hero. this is a huge mess my kids are about to enter. This is probably the best chance I have to use my skills to help my kids. That's the investment thesis.
This is probably ten years of a project, and if you add in the district consolidation and PreK we desperately need, this is it for me. I am not only good with that, I'm happy to do it. My wife is a successful attorney, I can be of service this way.
Hi Christian, I know it probably feels like we’re throwing stones here, but if you didn’t want to run, then why on earth are you running? D65 doesn’t need a white knight, and I can’t see a world in which Evanstonians would vote for someone who uses the school board as a stepping stone for their political ambitions. Not the time, not the place.
Also politically, Evanston doesn't do springboards - my political aspirations *were* Mayor or Committeeman, two Evanston-centric jobs. Funnily enough, when I went to be one, a guy who I thought would endorse me said he was going to run. I said cool! Then went for the second, same guy, same thing. It isn't personal, but I am definitely plugged in to Springfield in ways that nobody else in our field is, and I bring these unique relationships and skills for new ones.
And as far as "white knights" I think you're actually way wrong - we do need one, unfortunately I'm too much of a hack to really be that person.
Do you know why or have some idea why you weren't entrusted to be "the guy" in either of those jobs? i.e. you've said you can take criticism -- and I am sure there won't be a shortage of it for any board, let alone the next one -- what was the criticism or perceived shortcoming then, and is it something you've since overcome that should make you one of the four to sit on this board?
I guess good news for you, "same guy" is running in that other race, not this one.
Curious what your feelings are about that guy now and about his leadership of Evanston. What would you do the same and what would you have done differently if you had been mayor? I assume you are talking about biss right?
My son and daughter are about to go through a school system that is fundamentally unchanged or worse than the one I went through 30 years ago right here. That and the fact that the political ecosystem does frequently get caught up in hierarchy where school boards are considered "low" bugs me! I have political skills, I have financial skills, I have board management skills, and I have a vision for the District.
Fair enough. That’s definitely the right response. I’ll be honest, lots of us have HAD IT with the know-all Uber liberal democrats who silenced candidates in the past for not being woke enough or say the word “equity” enough. And looky here now, we have a major crisis in a district which pulls in $160M a year for a paltry 6000 kids. I don’t want to hear the catch phrases and words du jour. I want to hear how this district can right the ship without asking me to fork out more. I want to hear how this district can lose the admin bloat and can the constant revolving door of consultants. I want to hear how this district can be more about letting teachers develop learning plans within the limits of the standards, but more free to educate - like most of them learned in grad school- and not rely on expensive curricula that Beardsley likes to keep buying. I want more organic learning and excitement from students. Lose the iPads, learn to write and do basic math. I want more parental involvement and schools which welcome them and not act like there is still Covid or that we are a danger in the buildings. I want individual PTAs to be able to set their own goals and do what’s right for THEIR student bodies, as well as share with their sister schools who deserve it. Less top down control. We have a mess of creativity and brains in this town. Why the hell are we outsourcing everything to outsiders? Get the finances in order- might need to tighten the belts over at JEH. Sell a car or two. Lose some weight by skipping the Grecian Kitchen garlic fries gravy train. That’s first and foremost. We can’t worry about the worsening gap if the State takes over. I’m tired of the DPOE and people with their yard signs. I’m tired of the same broads and especially ones like those with names that are crayon colors. Less Mean Girls and more Dead Poet Society. Let’s get back to not having a small but vocal minority having the Admins’ ears. The whole city is impacted by this mess. We all deserve to have a district that puts our hard earned money to use correctly. Did anyone else’s taxes go up recently? Mine nearly doubled. You think I want to pay more??? No one should be volunteering for this job unless they want to fix the financial problems, and be a part of making some really powerful and creative changes within the district. I’m tired of performative equity bullshite. I just want ALL the kids going to ETHS be able to read a 9th grade textbook. Is that too much to ask?
The administrative costs have to come down. I have a friend who is a VP at a local school in a district with almost 65% less district overhead. I think the baseline cuts just to JEH salary is a minimum of $4.5m, but should probably stretch to $7m in a new August budget, maybe more. The new board needs to have the strategic vision AND the social/political backbone to do that to a potentially frustrated current Supe or, more likely, a brand new Supe that they just hired.
We're going to need to create these cuts while also providing stability to a professional administration in flux so we can build momentum and not stagnate. I think the rest of our field can do some of that, but what I bring that nobody else in this field does is the experience with other local elected bodies (gotta renegotiate that TIF if we can among other things) and funding processes to make it as easy as possible for that administration in flux gets the doors open it needs. And we need to do this without spending money on consultants. I'm counting on myself to put together those new auxiliary citizen committees to get free help, to get more out of the people who live here, and to make sure that when the board gets stuck on a board-style crisis (things happen in schools! bullying, tragedy, whatever) that we don't stay there, that we handle crises AND keep moving strategies forward at the lowest possible cost.
Again, I think almost any combination of the 17 of us can get some of that done, but I am confident that if I am involved we can get the most done.
Technically correct, but when you factor in comp from lobbies, I don't know if this narrative holds up! Would imagine PM of the UK similarly enjoys a lot of tangible benefits not included in his salary. Point taken, just kind of apples to oranges if you dig beyond the surface.
I don't think we have an issue of overpaying our Superintendents, and I don't think it's a stretch that many others would agree with the notion that most of us just want job performance commensurate with the comp. Oh, and a board in alignment with upholding those expectations.
Well damn, Sorensen, I’ve been trying not to like you, but I’m hearing nearly everything I have been wanting to hear. I’m hearing drastic (up to 50%) JEH admin cuts. I heard new superintendent. (Hopefully one not from CPS at all, but at least one NOT on the Do Not Hire list.). I hear tapping into local brain power via aux comms which could very well replace any need for the endless line of consultants this current Board favors. I hear connections to Springfield, which could be beneficial. I hear strategic thinking with the desire to make radical changes. I’d like to see all of this happen. Without coming to an already beleaguered citizenry that just got hit with a huge tax bill. And Tom is right: this current Board is leaving a steaming pile of dookie for the new Board to deal with. I hope in the end the ones left holding the pooper scooper don’t get the blame for the mess, but rather it’s the dogs that are remembered for laying it. One bright spot: we elect new people who make it reeeeal uncomfortable for the remaining members (except Omar, he really isn’t responsible for most of this and he has education experience) to want to stay and replacements can quickly be found. Most preferable is that they quit now so new ones can be elected fairly and not appointed. But I won’t hold my breath.
Karl, my man! For someone trying not to like someone, you're not actually trying that hard, you big teddy bear you.
This isn't to wholly discredit some of what Christian lays out, I think we should and will see similar themes from many of the candidates. But...
-Saying we need to make drastic cuts to admin isn't a particularly hot take (Tom laid it out a while ago!). I know we've been burned a million times so I'm probably wrong, but theoretically, personnel-related cuts to impact next year have to happen within a certain timeframe and are likely to already be enacted by current admin/board before any of these hopefuls take those four seats. Keep in mind we have a CFO digging in this time around.
-"Likely new superintendent" is also not as contentious of a thing to suggest these days. Dr. Turner is effectively already on the hotseat and can easily see the writing on the wall. In what world will she be credited with amazingly navigating some of these messy decisions after already having some massive misfires thus far. I'd be surprised if she sticks around past the end of this school year and would put the odds on her resignation before it being pushed upon her.
-these "aux comms" we're speaking of...hmm, haven't we heard this before from Superintendents and Boards? these community input groups? I'd be eager to see how these could be conceptually different, but best case we just actually do community engagement better vs. checking a box. I do agree that if we actually utilize community groups/committees' collective expertise vs. making heavy-handed decisions and pretending to solicit feedback (see the latest Deficit Reduction outreach happening in December instead of September), we can certainly rely less on consultants than we have in recent memory.
-re: "without coming to an already beleaguered citizenry that just got hit with a huge tax bill"--Christian has openly acknowledged the likely need for referenda to address capital expenses. Sure, there's an initial building trust period in theory, but it was mentioned as early as spring 2026 ballot IIRC. Hope you like chasing Fritz's 2025 triennial tax reassessment with a 2026 proposed influx of tax money #4daskoolz! I'm not automatically anti that, just pointing it out since you seem to be pretty adamant on NOT being bothered for more $$ any time soon (spring '26 is less than 18 months away!)
All this is to say, I understand the desire to start to evaluate the field based on the discontent with the status quo. We're still a solid 4 months away from the election and you're seemingly ready to hand a vote to one person flooding the zone in the comments. You're supposed to be the tough one to win over! I'm glad Christian has a lot of ideas and has put thought into these things, but I don't think we know enough about the rest of the field to be all "OH YEAH, HE IS HIM!"
I don’t disagree with what you say. But right out the gate the hate was on this candidate and we hadn’t even heard one word he had to say. So I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. Because if I know Evanston, and I think a half century says I do, a bunch of cream puffs will take seats and the hard work won’t get done. I’m pessimistic like that- I thoughtfully filled out Tom’s survey of who I wanted to hear more from. And I do want to learn more. These other candidates should jump in the fray! Sorensen does have skills we need: budget and finance experience, and experience managing people and decision making. That feels already stronger than what we’ve got now. And from what I hear, he has never been arrested for shoplifting at the grocery store- that’s already a mark in his favor for sure. I’m not a lemming voter, I’ll cross party lines if it ever makes sense. I need to hear some strong statements from candidates. Normally, I would prize experience in education above all else. I think now we need strong business leaders to get us to a point where the focus can shift to educating the kids wherever they land. There are some really awful decisions to be made by this new group- I certainly don’t envy them. I’m not as worried about the referendum because it’s not 2017. It’s a different ballgame and we will get hit again with Fritz That’s It’s magic assessment 8-ball. I don’t think many people are going to be willing to pay more. The district has money coming in. It’s now time to hear from people who will talk about how to spend it the most wisely. I don’t know Sorensen from a hole in the wall, but I’m giving everyone a fair shake. And I’ll say it again: a lot of what he has stated in these comments here have resonated with me. We will see how everyone else stacks up. It’s not voting day today, my friend. So don’t worry about me. I’ll come for the candidates that deserve it. I just don’t know who they are yet.
Sounds like you came in ready not to like me personally. That's politics! I am not gonna close the door on why. I just think your interpretation of what actually transpired is way off and that's gotta be coming from something you felt like I did before or something I represent.
Sorry, to clear this up for you and everyone - when I say I never wanted to run for d65, I remember helping Mark Metz on his d202 race in 2011 and seeing the vitriol and the pay and thinking "man I never want to get involved in this, seems not worth it". That was before I had kids and before I saw the K-8 district I grew up in and my family went through have not one, not two, but three years of eight-figure "surprise" deficits.
There aren’t any incumbents running. No candidates w explicitly similar views to the last round of candidates endorsed by the Machine were targeted- a Rhodes parent and 2 Kingsley parents were, schools that may face closure w the construction of Foster School. Christian, I appreciate you as a person and know you also care about quality education in D65. It does seem like a good step would be to come out in support of Brandon staying on the ballot. He lives in the district and put the same work in that you did to file early for a top three position on the ballot.
I am in support of all 17 people staying in the field. I drove Dr. Utter to submission and was happy to meet him! I like him and his family is comnected to my family. I would never sign an objection based on his papers, I texted and called him that Wednesday to say hey get a lawyer, he said he had already talked to someone and felt confident and I was glad.
I believe in my political skills and work ethic and vision that it could be a field of 5 or 17 and I am going to run the same race - I am running FOR a seat, not AGAINST anyone else running.
Couldn’t you just ask Neal to cancel the objections? He’s your good friend right? At the least please tell him what a racist twat this makes him look like for going after the only Asian candidate on the list for totally nonsensical technical issues. What a prick.
It’s interesting that the most qualified and kind candidates are the ones who got challenged. I have seen proof that Christian has targeted the most likely to win candidates and had his “good friend” Neal do his dirty work and challenge them. THIS IS A VOLUNTEER POSITION. There is no room for Christian on this board.
I don't quite get this narrative! I don't see how spending time wading into a comment section helps me win? I told Neal this was a bad idea but we are actually friends and colleagues - he can say no, and he did. I have no problem putting my name on objections to candidates and have done so before, I'm not hiding and I'm happy to exhaust this over the coming months. The moment it looked like Neal was serious about less than the full number of challenges he threatened, I went to each candidate and told them this was coming and they should get a lawyer. What else was there to do? I'm serious here, open to a postmortem.
I know everyone is mad at the incumbents and I am as close as anyone is gonna get to being one so I'm gonna keep taking the beating because I know if I am on this board next May for four years I can get us things other candidates can't.
Confused by your comment about being as close as anyone is gonna get to being an incumbent. What do you mean by that? I don't see how any candidate would want to draw even a loose comparison to them at this point, unless you're into self-sabotage. I'm viewing you as a candidate who would come in on a fresh slate just like any of your 16 peers.
I saw this comment on the Evanston roundtable article and it really resonated with me- “Going after the only female candidate of South East Asian descent is a very bad look for Neal Weingarden. I would hope the Democratic Party of Evanston disavows his action and doesn’t employ him in the future.”
Not sure about the DPOE part as I don’t know much about them but isn’t biss the chair of it?
The part I do know about is the huge under representation of Asian and Asian American subjects in D65. The fact that Mr. Weingarden is attempting to kick the only Asian American running for school board is ugly. Does he even have a kid in D65 or just a jerk acting on behalf of the DPOE?
Not defending Weingaeten, but you have two Asian Americans on the board now. And then there is former Board president Kartha who oversaw the Horton hire.
With that said, making identity politics critiques of Weingaeten is stupid. It is the identity politics worship by the board that got us into this mess.
It has literally bankrupted us and we should move way beyond it and reject the rhetoric outright.
If you read my other comments, it’s clear that my criticism of Weingarten’s actions isn’t based solely on race. I believe the pettiness of his challenges is unwarranted—voters should be allowed to decide who they want to represent them. That said, having a diverse field of candidates is important. While I don’t know Anita personally, her CV suggests she is highly qualified and would make an excellent member of the future board.
The claim that “worship of identity politics got us into this mess” oversimplifies the issue and misses the mark. It sounds like something someone who claims not to see race might say. Furthermore, bringing up the performance of past Asian candidates in relation to Anita’s candidacy is both irrelevant and inappropriate. Race and representation matter—but so do qualifications.
What truly got us into this mess was a seriously corrupt superintendent and CFO making questionable financial claims under the guise of economic miracles, coupled with a board dominated by educational consultants who refused to question or provide oversight on even the most outrageous assertions. Adding to this was a toxic climate, fueled by racist attacks on candidates critical of the current administration during the last election. These attacks succeeded in muddying the waters. DPOE’s endorsements of the current regime’s candidates also had a significant impact on the broader electorate in Evanston.
I would encourage you to take a look at Biz's ridiculous slide show that Tom has somewhere in his archives where she explicitly says that ANY critique of Horton was simply White Rage.
That's pretty much identity politics run haywire and explains why the Board hired someone seriously corrupt as superintendent and let him run wild.
It has been mentioned on these pages before, but the ONLY rationale ever given for the Foster School--by Horton or the board--was to "right the wrong" of closing Foster fifty years ago. The rationale is entirely symbolic and entirely driven by a nostalgia by a small number of old timers to Make The Fifth Ward Great Again.
The main reason it is being raised is due to the increased diversification that has come to the Fifth Ward over the past 20 years that some old timers in the neighborhood don't like.
There has NEVER been any information released by the district indicating that bussing has a negative outcome on learning.
The secondary rationale we heard to justify the school is that "everyone needs a school that they can walk to." Well, OK. That is fine, I guess. But if walking is really the priority, why didn't they look at changing the boundaries for Dewey or Kingsley, looking at the conversion of King Arts into a neighborhood school, or looking into Charter school options in existing spaces (like the Family Focus or the Civic Center).
None of this stuff was ever discussed.
To quote Horton the whole purpose of the new school is "to bring our babies home."
It is backward-looking and motivated entirely by identity.
I think we can hold two things in our heads at once: that 1) the over-reliance generally on identity politics has not been a fruitful policy endeavor and 2) that the folks in the fifth ward, especially the older folks, do have an identity that is tied to the history of Evanston and their experiences as black folks in the town.
I think if any neighborhood in Evanston comes to the Board requesting a school, we should attempt to honor that request - but within the context of a broader facilities plan. I think a Foster School could easily fit within that plan (new facilities are desperately needed) -- but that was never done. They still are unwilling to have these conversations, but instead just keep kicking the can to the D65 admin to do surveys or community meetings or whatever as the money burns.
I think D65 and the SAP committees and Horton really did everyone a disservice - they absolutely lied to the folks of the Fifth ward and used such divisive language that it's become such a black and white issue (literally) and I hate that for Evanston. It was all done for their personal gain at the expense of everyone in Evanston: white and black.
Also, curious if any of the current incumbents faced filing challenges, or if this is simply an attempt for the Evanston Machine (just bc it’s wrapped in a progressive cloak doesn’t mean it isn’t a machine) trying to force clarity on the slate.
Or maybe no current member ever made a bureaucratic error in their filing? Seems unlikely, given their performance on the board.
I appreciate Christian S. for being transparent that this wasn’t some random thing.
None of the current incumbents are running. They are giving other reasons but none have the stomach to face voters after pushing the District to the brink of insolvency.
First, I agree with Brandon Utter that the objections are "absurd" -- we shouldn't be looking to toss candidates based on technicalities and it should be the clerk's office responsibility to ensure the candidates are following the rules and file the correct paperwork -- isn't that their job?
Having said that, it's certainly possible that Neal Weingarden found things they missed.
1.) Brandon lives in Skokie, not Evanston Tom. :) So your personal attestation was off. Of course, he does live in D65's boundaries and thus is allowed to run for school board. My reading of the objection is not that Brandon doesn't live in the district, but the address he supplied on his application is different than the address he is registered against to vote. Do those need to match? I have no idea, but seems like Weingarden seems to think so and says that they don't match. Is that enough to toss someone off the ballot? Again, no idea, up to the courts to decide, but would seem very trivial if the individual moved and is qualified to run based on their current address.
2.) For Peter Bogira, seems like Weingarden didn't see the statement of economic interest because the CLERK'S OFFICE neglected to scan it and put it in the public domain. So, he was actually "correct" that it didn't exist yet, but not because Bogira didn't do it, simply because the clerk's office hadn't made it available. When notified of this snafu on the clerk's side and subsequent fix, Weingarden has stated he is going to withdraw his objection for Bogira.
3.) I have no insights whatsoever into the Anita Opdycke objection.
With regard to Brandon, I don't know him and know nothing about him.
But with regard to a potential discrepancy between the address on his voter registration and that on his paperwork, it makes absolutely no difference.
The voter registration file has no magical authority. People move all the time and when you file your petitions all you have to do is attest that you live in the district.
You actually don't even have to be registered to vote to run for office!
Hi everyone. Christopher DeNardo, candidate for school board here. I attended a training session for potential candidates for IL office put on by the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. The session covered the process of challenging a candidate filing and went over a few example cases. Based on what I learned, challenging a candidate's filing is more common in larger, partisan races, such as those for state senate. It is not uncommon for challenges to take place even within a party primary. However, the examples were all from races that required hundreds of petition signatures to gain ballot access, not the 50 required for non-partisan, local school board races.
I would be curious to know the reasons why these three candidates were targeted and if we can expect more challenges coming in the future. The challenge process is a legitimate tool to combat fraud and a candidate filing should be strong enough to withstand a challenge. Even so, these tactics seem a little too "big-league" for a local school board race.
Full disclosure, Brandon Utter and I are both Bessie Rhodes parents and I can attest that he is indeed a legitimate resident of Evanston/District 65.
Weingarden Was also on current board member May Wilkins’ campaign payroll last year so these objections automatically make these candidates more interesting to me.
Anyone the old guard is against is worth taking seriously in my view.
FFS, is this really necessary? What’s in it for him? Not to go down the rabbit hole (too late) but it’s interesting and I’m sure totally coincidental that Weingarden’s background overlaps quite neatly with another candidate in the running. Rabbit holed. Regardless of what or who is behind this, it stinks of the worst kind of politics - something we really don’t need right now
I know!! That's what I told Neal, and when I realized he was definitely going to file the week before, I called all of the candidates he was targeting and made sure they knew what was coming.
How convenient for you to be forewarned.
well, we are colleagues and friends! he came to me out of professional courtesy, I then went and let Brandon and Anita and Peter know. there was still a chance he wouldnt file, but as I told them - if they were my client I wouldn't want to get blindsided
You are connected to all of this. There is proof. In the end Evanston needs better than Neal and you and this.
How charitable of him and of you. 🙄
Care to share with the group who he was targeting and not targeting and why?
Neal told me today he is gonna talk at length with EvanstonNow, the Roundtable, and Tom. He can get into it. I know he is a stickler for rules and he can take process problems way personally. There was a point where he suggested he was going to challenge my petitions because my personal signature at the clerks office doesn't match the signature on my candidate forms.
Would love for you to share his email where he told you he was going to challenge your petitions or was it more of a nudge wink kind of thing. And in the end why didn’t he challenge your petitions but went ahead with the other challenges? Seems odd.
Not an email, was a phone call. He didn't challenge mine nor another technicality nor the five he felt were short on petition signatures. I asked him, he said he was going to move forward, so I did what I thought was the best possible thing - get a hold of the potential targets and let them know this could be coming. I looked at it as what is pretty typical for a board member: a partner/colleague you don't control (a superintendent, a teacher, a fellow board member) is about to do something that isn't helpful (like close two grades of a school in October). Rather than run away and hide, I mitigated, and now I'm being publicly accessible despite having no control (and not pretending despite lacking control I can avoid responsibility).
The irony here is that if I HAD hired Neal, I could tell him what to do! Paying for a sin of pride in running my campaign solo, its a funny thing.
Would appreciate a full explanation of your relationship with Weingarten. Not to mention a full explanation of your role in the DPOE and if you played a role in endorsements of sitting D65 board members.
The problem w DPOE endorsements of non-partisan positions in a one-party town is that they aren’t pushing out “Republicans” but instead pushing out anyone whose viewpoints don’t mirror the party line/group think. And in the last 7 years or so that narrowness within the DPOE and among Evanston’s most politically active residents has led to disastrous educational policies that have hurt all Evanston children. These bad policies have included eliminating differentiated math instruction, discouraging the use of disciplinary consequences when kids hurt other kids, failing to take fiduciary responsibilities seriously, failing to support the district’s bilingual magnet school, and keeping schools closed longer than necessary during covid. If Evanston wants competitive public education, it also has to have competitive non-partisan elections again. This hopefully includes an openness to both people with financial expertise and to parents who have witnessed what works and what doesn’t at the school level.
This is a fair point - I think the DPOE has had as few as 175ish dues-paying members in recent years after a recent high water mark of 750+ members in the immediate 2017 post Trump 45 election. I agree that we have been narrow and have been trying to broaden the org in all directions, both against and in favor of the points you are raising, but one other note - education is only one policy topic and infrequently the highest priority.
So broadening DPOE’s perspective would be refreshing. As you note, Evanston has 32,000 Democrats and only around 175 people belong to the DPOE. We might get somewhere if the org could acknowledge mistakes in the positions its candidates have taken on education policy in recent years, including being upfront about policy changes that have been accompanied by drops in student test scores and the financial mismanagement that was initiated and continues on the watch of DPOE-endorsed candidates. DPOE should not be a gatekeeper. If it wants to grow there should be more reflection about mistakes and how to be more responsive to a much wider swath of Democrats. And for many non-DPOE Democrats, academic excellence in K-8 public schools is a huge priority. But if DPOE is just endorsing more of the same faux-Progressive takes that got us into insolvency and slipping rankings, or being vague to avoid having to renounce choices that haven’t worked out for students, why would more people join at this point?
I wouldn't hold your breath. If you look at the DPOE board you have multiple people who have lost municipal elections which suggests to me that the views of those people are out of touch with the greater electorate in Evanston.
Obviously there are more people on the board than a handful of failed candidates--you have successful candidates like Biss & Mendoza--so maybe there is more diversity in opinion, but who knows.
My sense is that the vast majority of Evanstonians don't even know the DPOE exists, let alone that they act as gatekeepers. So I am not worried about their niche concerns and positions all that much.
as far as the individuals who won the endorsement of the DPOE, I am going to point out that the DPOE endorsement process is a 66% plus vote of present membership - I don't think all of the incumbents have been endorsed at that level. Our endorsement also used to come with mostly Votebuilder access as the primary prize (a database of registered voters kept by the party) but I don't recall it being used very much. Again, I was more focused on the municipal side of the last two April election cycles, have not been as involved with D65 as my kids are only just now school aged and there were other voices in those rooms with kids in the district.
The DPOE endorsed Samantha Steele for the Board of Review. Last month she had a DUI incident where she damaged another car and used her position as an elected official to try and influence the cops.
Do you think she should step down? I have not seen any DPOE people comment at all on her dreadful behavior.
I do, and our next board meeting is Thursday, and I am going to make thd case that the org issue a statement. I have been an erstwhile supporter of Cmsr. Steele but it is unacceptable to put that office in this situation.
I mean, it is AMAZING that the DPOE hasn't issued anything. This happened almost a month ago. The dash cam video is DEVASTATING. She's drunk as a skunk, she had an open bottle of wine in the car, she was talking back to the cops, saying "I'm an elected official" while refusing to let them investigate the crash. She hit multiple cars. She asks the cops to call an ambulance and then when paramedics get there she says she doesn't want medical treatment.
This woman needs to have her drivers license revoked and spend some time in rehab.
Biss has time to send a letter reflecting on the election within days yet there is total silence for a month when a local elected goes on a mad drunk driving spree and uses her position to try and stop an investigation into the incident?
Here's the link to the video. It is wild and disturbing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icr9yLPadlk
Dude, its past Thursday and its been crickets on the DPOE-Steele front. I guess she is still a member in good stead.
Let's not be disingenuous -
1. The 66% vote threshold for endorsement for the D65 election last cycle was 75 votes. This is in a City where Democrats at the top of the ticket in the November elections the last several elections have pulled +/- 90% of the vote.
For people who don't pay attention to what happens with D65 short of the kind of financial mismanagement that brings the District to the point of insolvency, the DPOE endorsement carries a lot of weight. In truth, it is the real insider's game - a primary that no one knows about.
2. Access to the Votebuilder is nice, but you left off the party-sponsored mailings, phone banking, and door knocking. Those are things that are much more valuable that use of a database that really only has value if you have resources (people and money) to make use of it. The DPOE endorsement provides both.
I'd be curious to know the history of DPOE endorsements in non-partisan elections. I've lived here for a while, and I only remember this happening (maybe?) in the past couple of elections. My sense is that it is a pretty recent thing. I could be wrong.
Before I had kids and paid attention, I would say that I would look at the teacher's union endorsements and usually vote their way.
Of course both the union and DPOE have been on the same page for the last couple of elections.
In general it has gone back and forth. The DPOE has an unfortunate habit of being run to benefit the individual political careers for folks on the board, no doubt I am guilty of that although I have tried to be fair and honest and never wanted to join (a story for a different thread.)
1,000,000 times this. DPOE is almost single handedly responsible for the last two rounds of BOE election results. Smearing any nonincumbents—I find their behavior abhorrent…all because of 75 votes —which are all acolytes of the some of the most problematic narcissists in this town. Shameful.
Not just in the fliers and endorsements, but in their candidate forums and the awful attacks they allows on their social media pages. Total garbage. Trust lost here and cannot see a time when I would ever consider joining —or trusting anything they put out.
again, I want to be super clear - there were NO dpoe sponsored mailers, canvassers, or phone banks. at most in 2021 under Greg Andrus running the now-disbanded Political Committee we let any endorsed candidate book space for their own phone banks? but I am actually unaware of a school board candidate using that feature, and now most campaigns dont even do physical phonebanks and do virtual only.
I know the brand endorsement carries some legitimacy! but again not every incumbent received that endorsement. I would love for it to be true that the DPOE endorsement swung the race but there is no data and no effort by DPOE to support that, so if the intangible brand value alone swung the election then I go back to those 75+ members (and that number was much higher in 2021 in my memory, over 110, but again I may be mistaken and those were the Mayor or Clerk numbers)
I believe the DPOE had fliers with recommended candidates for D65 and volunteers outside of polling places handing them out. I saw them when I was campaigning. Sergio Hernandez’s wife knocked on my door asking me to vote for her husband and it looked like they had address lists from the DPOE. As a registered Democrat I don’t trust the DPOE as far as I can throw them.
In the last election every D65 incumbent got the DPOE endorsement. And when you speak of the 75 people who “showed up” there was nowhere to show up to. You had to pay to join the DPOE and then you could vote via email on the D65 candidates. No meeting, no discussions, just pay to play. This was my experience as a volunteer on a challenger’s campaign the last election.
75 votes* of people who showed up! I am always embarrassed that in a town with 32,000 Democratic votes for President that it should be so low.
There were no party-sponsored mailings that I am aware of - we haven't done one in a few cycles. I agree on people and money, but the irony there is that we didn't offer either - no check and no volunteers.
Neal and I are friends and we work together. I told him this was a bad idea, I told him he probably loses at least two of three of these challenges.
I wasn't that involved in the 21 or 23 endorsement cycle planning, I was on the rotating crew of questioners but did not come up with the D65 questions as much as the municipal, but let me be clear - it is my personal and professional view that the DPOE *absolutely* should be endorsing candidates at all levels. The way Republicans get footholds is at the local often nonpartisan level and I am certainly partisan.
Neal does your dirty work.
Hi Christian, Just curious: I was looking at your website and you indicate that you want "to rebuild trust in advance of potential capital expenditure referenda."
Does this mean you are in favor of a capital referendum to somehow supplant the lease certificates being used to fund the Fifth Ward school?
I have heard talk of another operations referendum, but I am not sure why we would need a capital referendum given that the Fifth Ward School operational budget raid has already left the barn.
If you are saying we could somehow pause new capital construction until a referendum passed (like they did in Wheaton), that is a good idea. But I am not sure how that interfaces with the lease certificates.
I think pause/restructure borrowing is a possibility, especially if we want to go back to K-8 model instead of the reduced K-5. I also am looking at data and studies on other schools that do alternative arrangements like K-2, 3-5, 6-8 buildings - we need to get competitive with local private and parochial offerings too. I am thinking in March of 2026 we may need to roll a "refinance" of the lease certs into bonds along with a larger deferred maintenance borrowing. This depends on the state of the budget in May and the new one in August too. Lots of possibilities there.
We need some of these candidates to drop out so the field narrows. Anyone the DPOE supports will be suspect on my list. I love how diplomatically Barry Doyle puts it when clarifying the DPOE role in these elections. I’ll put it more bluntly. It’s a sack of shite. I am looking forward to learning more about the challenges, but mostly about learning more about candidates from Tom. I think there should be some questions posed to all candidates. One I would ask would be “Are you going to be asking us to pony up cash via a referendum?” The second would be “What is your specific experience with finance and can you read a balance sheet?” Would also like to hear if other people have questions that should be asked across the board to all candidates.
Haha I should bring a D65 balance sheet and quiz them on the numbers
In all seriousness, that sounds like a good idea.
I can do it in game show format!! Spin the wheel, get line item and lets go!
Happy to be suspect, but also hope to get a fair hearing. I can understand skepticism from you, from Megan up above, from everyone here in Tom's ecosystem. I never wanted to run for D65, had a terrible time myself at Haven and had other political aspirations. Happy to show I can take criticism and respond like a board member should.
I'm trying to stay out of these conversations because I don't want to be seen as taking a side here.
But
One thing to keep in mind if you have other or future political aspirations is that the 2025 D65 Board job might be the worst possible job. For one, the current Board+Admin are kicking the can on everything until Jan 2025 and (I think) will probably just defer it all until April (I wouldn't blame them!). That means this next board will be responsible for:
1) Closing 2-3 Schools and taking the heat from that, including overseeing the final closing and sale of Bessie Rhodes.
2) Terminating a non-trivial number of Administrators; recall that we currently spent $15m/year on headcount vs $5m/year in 2016. This is not going to go smoothly!
3) Finishing or cancelling the Foster School. Any Board responsible for stopping this project can basically kiss their political aspirations goodbye. Finishing it means finding a way to locate $3.25m per year plus $6m in construction costs.
4) Potentially negotiating contracts with teachers (we still don't actually have a contract officially!)
OR even worse, if you can't do those things you'll be the board members responsible when the state takes over. Good luck running for dog catcher after that.
I literally can't think of a worse elected job in politics. If you have any long-term career aspirations in politics, you may want to stay away for your own sake. I think it's easy to be like "this is a good opportunity to be a hero" and maybe that's true, but the numbers don't lie.
This isn't a hero move - I am not a hero. this is a huge mess my kids are about to enter. This is probably the best chance I have to use my skills to help my kids. That's the investment thesis.
This is probably ten years of a project, and if you add in the district consolidation and PreK we desperately need, this is it for me. I am not only good with that, I'm happy to do it. My wife is a successful attorney, I can be of service this way.
Hi Christian, I know it probably feels like we’re throwing stones here, but if you didn’t want to run, then why on earth are you running? D65 doesn’t need a white knight, and I can’t see a world in which Evanstonians would vote for someone who uses the school board as a stepping stone for their political ambitions. Not the time, not the place.
Also politically, Evanston doesn't do springboards - my political aspirations *were* Mayor or Committeeman, two Evanston-centric jobs. Funnily enough, when I went to be one, a guy who I thought would endorse me said he was going to run. I said cool! Then went for the second, same guy, same thing. It isn't personal, but I am definitely plugged in to Springfield in ways that nobody else in our field is, and I bring these unique relationships and skills for new ones.
And as far as "white knights" I think you're actually way wrong - we do need one, unfortunately I'm too much of a hack to really be that person.
Do you know why or have some idea why you weren't entrusted to be "the guy" in either of those jobs? i.e. you've said you can take criticism -- and I am sure there won't be a shortage of it for any board, let alone the next one -- what was the criticism or perceived shortcoming then, and is it something you've since overcome that should make you one of the four to sit on this board?
I guess good news for you, "same guy" is running in that other race, not this one.
Curious what your feelings are about that guy now and about his leadership of Evanston. What would you do the same and what would you have done differently if you had been mayor? I assume you are talking about biss right?
My son and daughter are about to go through a school system that is fundamentally unchanged or worse than the one I went through 30 years ago right here. That and the fact that the political ecosystem does frequently get caught up in hierarchy where school boards are considered "low" bugs me! I have political skills, I have financial skills, I have board management skills, and I have a vision for the District.
No stones! Happy to talk!
Fair enough. That’s definitely the right response. I’ll be honest, lots of us have HAD IT with the know-all Uber liberal democrats who silenced candidates in the past for not being woke enough or say the word “equity” enough. And looky here now, we have a major crisis in a district which pulls in $160M a year for a paltry 6000 kids. I don’t want to hear the catch phrases and words du jour. I want to hear how this district can right the ship without asking me to fork out more. I want to hear how this district can lose the admin bloat and can the constant revolving door of consultants. I want to hear how this district can be more about letting teachers develop learning plans within the limits of the standards, but more free to educate - like most of them learned in grad school- and not rely on expensive curricula that Beardsley likes to keep buying. I want more organic learning and excitement from students. Lose the iPads, learn to write and do basic math. I want more parental involvement and schools which welcome them and not act like there is still Covid or that we are a danger in the buildings. I want individual PTAs to be able to set their own goals and do what’s right for THEIR student bodies, as well as share with their sister schools who deserve it. Less top down control. We have a mess of creativity and brains in this town. Why the hell are we outsourcing everything to outsiders? Get the finances in order- might need to tighten the belts over at JEH. Sell a car or two. Lose some weight by skipping the Grecian Kitchen garlic fries gravy train. That’s first and foremost. We can’t worry about the worsening gap if the State takes over. I’m tired of the DPOE and people with their yard signs. I’m tired of the same broads and especially ones like those with names that are crayon colors. Less Mean Girls and more Dead Poet Society. Let’s get back to not having a small but vocal minority having the Admins’ ears. The whole city is impacted by this mess. We all deserve to have a district that puts our hard earned money to use correctly. Did anyone else’s taxes go up recently? Mine nearly doubled. You think I want to pay more??? No one should be volunteering for this job unless they want to fix the financial problems, and be a part of making some really powerful and creative changes within the district. I’m tired of performative equity bullshite. I just want ALL the kids going to ETHS be able to read a 9th grade textbook. Is that too much to ask?
The administrative costs have to come down. I have a friend who is a VP at a local school in a district with almost 65% less district overhead. I think the baseline cuts just to JEH salary is a minimum of $4.5m, but should probably stretch to $7m in a new August budget, maybe more. The new board needs to have the strategic vision AND the social/political backbone to do that to a potentially frustrated current Supe or, more likely, a brand new Supe that they just hired.
We're going to need to create these cuts while also providing stability to a professional administration in flux so we can build momentum and not stagnate. I think the rest of our field can do some of that, but what I bring that nobody else in this field does is the experience with other local elected bodies (gotta renegotiate that TIF if we can among other things) and funding processes to make it as easy as possible for that administration in flux gets the doors open it needs. And we need to do this without spending money on consultants. I'm counting on myself to put together those new auxiliary citizen committees to get free help, to get more out of the people who live here, and to make sure that when the board gets stuck on a board-style crisis (things happen in schools! bullying, tragedy, whatever) that we don't stay there, that we handle crises AND keep moving strategies forward at the lowest possible cost.
Again, I think almost any combination of the 17 of us can get some of that done, but I am confident that if I am involved we can get the most done.
How is it that the District 65 superintendent gets paid more than the Prime Minister of the UK (£172,153 = $219,500)?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48497953
Or a Member of Congress $174,000
Or the US Secretary of State $246,400
There are currently 9 staffers in the D65 office who make more than a member of congress. A district with <6000 kids.
Technically correct, but when you factor in comp from lobbies, I don't know if this narrative holds up! Would imagine PM of the UK similarly enjoys a lot of tangible benefits not included in his salary. Point taken, just kind of apples to oranges if you dig beyond the surface.
I don't think we have an issue of overpaying our Superintendents, and I don't think it's a stretch that many others would agree with the notion that most of us just want job performance commensurate with the comp. Oh, and a board in alignment with upholding those expectations.
Well damn, Sorensen, I’ve been trying not to like you, but I’m hearing nearly everything I have been wanting to hear. I’m hearing drastic (up to 50%) JEH admin cuts. I heard new superintendent. (Hopefully one not from CPS at all, but at least one NOT on the Do Not Hire list.). I hear tapping into local brain power via aux comms which could very well replace any need for the endless line of consultants this current Board favors. I hear connections to Springfield, which could be beneficial. I hear strategic thinking with the desire to make radical changes. I’d like to see all of this happen. Without coming to an already beleaguered citizenry that just got hit with a huge tax bill. And Tom is right: this current Board is leaving a steaming pile of dookie for the new Board to deal with. I hope in the end the ones left holding the pooper scooper don’t get the blame for the mess, but rather it’s the dogs that are remembered for laying it. One bright spot: we elect new people who make it reeeeal uncomfortable for the remaining members (except Omar, he really isn’t responsible for most of this and he has education experience) to want to stay and replacements can quickly be found. Most preferable is that they quit now so new ones can be elected fairly and not appointed. But I won’t hold my breath.
Karl, my man! For someone trying not to like someone, you're not actually trying that hard, you big teddy bear you.
This isn't to wholly discredit some of what Christian lays out, I think we should and will see similar themes from many of the candidates. But...
-Saying we need to make drastic cuts to admin isn't a particularly hot take (Tom laid it out a while ago!). I know we've been burned a million times so I'm probably wrong, but theoretically, personnel-related cuts to impact next year have to happen within a certain timeframe and are likely to already be enacted by current admin/board before any of these hopefuls take those four seats. Keep in mind we have a CFO digging in this time around.
-"Likely new superintendent" is also not as contentious of a thing to suggest these days. Dr. Turner is effectively already on the hotseat and can easily see the writing on the wall. In what world will she be credited with amazingly navigating some of these messy decisions after already having some massive misfires thus far. I'd be surprised if she sticks around past the end of this school year and would put the odds on her resignation before it being pushed upon her.
-these "aux comms" we're speaking of...hmm, haven't we heard this before from Superintendents and Boards? these community input groups? I'd be eager to see how these could be conceptually different, but best case we just actually do community engagement better vs. checking a box. I do agree that if we actually utilize community groups/committees' collective expertise vs. making heavy-handed decisions and pretending to solicit feedback (see the latest Deficit Reduction outreach happening in December instead of September), we can certainly rely less on consultants than we have in recent memory.
-re: "without coming to an already beleaguered citizenry that just got hit with a huge tax bill"--Christian has openly acknowledged the likely need for referenda to address capital expenses. Sure, there's an initial building trust period in theory, but it was mentioned as early as spring 2026 ballot IIRC. Hope you like chasing Fritz's 2025 triennial tax reassessment with a 2026 proposed influx of tax money #4daskoolz! I'm not automatically anti that, just pointing it out since you seem to be pretty adamant on NOT being bothered for more $$ any time soon (spring '26 is less than 18 months away!)
All this is to say, I understand the desire to start to evaluate the field based on the discontent with the status quo. We're still a solid 4 months away from the election and you're seemingly ready to hand a vote to one person flooding the zone in the comments. You're supposed to be the tough one to win over! I'm glad Christian has a lot of ideas and has put thought into these things, but I don't think we know enough about the rest of the field to be all "OH YEAH, HE IS HIM!"
I don’t disagree with what you say. But right out the gate the hate was on this candidate and we hadn’t even heard one word he had to say. So I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. Because if I know Evanston, and I think a half century says I do, a bunch of cream puffs will take seats and the hard work won’t get done. I’m pessimistic like that- I thoughtfully filled out Tom’s survey of who I wanted to hear more from. And I do want to learn more. These other candidates should jump in the fray! Sorensen does have skills we need: budget and finance experience, and experience managing people and decision making. That feels already stronger than what we’ve got now. And from what I hear, he has never been arrested for shoplifting at the grocery store- that’s already a mark in his favor for sure. I’m not a lemming voter, I’ll cross party lines if it ever makes sense. I need to hear some strong statements from candidates. Normally, I would prize experience in education above all else. I think now we need strong business leaders to get us to a point where the focus can shift to educating the kids wherever they land. There are some really awful decisions to be made by this new group- I certainly don’t envy them. I’m not as worried about the referendum because it’s not 2017. It’s a different ballgame and we will get hit again with Fritz That’s It’s magic assessment 8-ball. I don’t think many people are going to be willing to pay more. The district has money coming in. It’s now time to hear from people who will talk about how to spend it the most wisely. I don’t know Sorensen from a hole in the wall, but I’m giving everyone a fair shake. And I’ll say it again: a lot of what he has stated in these comments here have resonated with me. We will see how everyone else stacks up. It’s not voting day today, my friend. So don’t worry about me. I’ll come for the candidates that deserve it. I just don’t know who they are yet.
Don’t run if you never wanted to
Sounds like you came in ready not to like me personally. That's politics! I am not gonna close the door on why. I just think your interpretation of what actually transpired is way off and that's gotta be coming from something you felt like I did before or something I represent.
Sorry, to clear this up for you and everyone - when I say I never wanted to run for d65, I remember helping Mark Metz on his d202 race in 2011 and seeing the vitriol and the pay and thinking "man I never want to get involved in this, seems not worth it". That was before I had kids and before I saw the K-8 district I grew up in and my family went through have not one, not two, but three years of eight-figure "surprise" deficits.
Seems like a way to reduce the field to help his own preferred candidates. Yuck.
There aren’t any incumbents running. No candidates w explicitly similar views to the last round of candidates endorsed by the Machine were targeted- a Rhodes parent and 2 Kingsley parents were, schools that may face closure w the construction of Foster School. Christian, I appreciate you as a person and know you also care about quality education in D65. It does seem like a good step would be to come out in support of Brandon staying on the ballot. He lives in the district and put the same work in that you did to file early for a top three position on the ballot.
I am in support of all 17 people staying in the field. I drove Dr. Utter to submission and was happy to meet him! I like him and his family is comnected to my family. I would never sign an objection based on his papers, I texted and called him that Wednesday to say hey get a lawyer, he said he had already talked to someone and felt confident and I was glad.
I believe in my political skills and work ethic and vision that it could be a field of 5 or 17 and I am going to run the same race - I am running FOR a seat, not AGAINST anyone else running.
Couldn’t you just ask Neal to cancel the objections? He’s your good friend right? At the least please tell him what a racist twat this makes him look like for going after the only Asian candidate on the list for totally nonsensical technical issues. What a prick.
It’s interesting that the most qualified and kind candidates are the ones who got challenged. I have seen proof that Christian has targeted the most likely to win candidates and had his “good friend” Neal do his dirty work and challenge them. THIS IS A VOLUNTEER POSITION. There is no room for Christian on this board.
I don't quite get this narrative! I don't see how spending time wading into a comment section helps me win? I told Neal this was a bad idea but we are actually friends and colleagues - he can say no, and he did. I have no problem putting my name on objections to candidates and have done so before, I'm not hiding and I'm happy to exhaust this over the coming months. The moment it looked like Neal was serious about less than the full number of challenges he threatened, I went to each candidate and told them this was coming and they should get a lawyer. What else was there to do? I'm serious here, open to a postmortem.
I know everyone is mad at the incumbents and I am as close as anyone is gonna get to being one so I'm gonna keep taking the beating because I know if I am on this board next May for four years I can get us things other candidates can't.
Confused by your comment about being as close as anyone is gonna get to being an incumbent. What do you mean by that? I don't see how any candidate would want to draw even a loose comparison to them at this point, unless you're into self-sabotage. I'm viewing you as a candidate who would come in on a fresh slate just like any of your 16 peers.
I saw this comment on the Evanston roundtable article and it really resonated with me- “Going after the only female candidate of South East Asian descent is a very bad look for Neal Weingarden. I would hope the Democratic Party of Evanston disavows his action and doesn’t employ him in the future.”
Not sure about the DPOE part as I don’t know much about them but isn’t biss the chair of it?
The part I do know about is the huge under representation of Asian and Asian American subjects in D65. The fact that Mr. Weingarden is attempting to kick the only Asian American running for school board is ugly. Does he even have a kid in D65 or just a jerk acting on behalf of the DPOE?
Not defending Weingaeten, but you have two Asian Americans on the board now. And then there is former Board president Kartha who oversaw the Horton hire.
With that said, making identity politics critiques of Weingaeten is stupid. It is the identity politics worship by the board that got us into this mess.
It has literally bankrupted us and we should move way beyond it and reject the rhetoric outright.
If you read my other comments, it’s clear that my criticism of Weingarten’s actions isn’t based solely on race. I believe the pettiness of his challenges is unwarranted—voters should be allowed to decide who they want to represent them. That said, having a diverse field of candidates is important. While I don’t know Anita personally, her CV suggests she is highly qualified and would make an excellent member of the future board.
The claim that “worship of identity politics got us into this mess” oversimplifies the issue and misses the mark. It sounds like something someone who claims not to see race might say. Furthermore, bringing up the performance of past Asian candidates in relation to Anita’s candidacy is both irrelevant and inappropriate. Race and representation matter—but so do qualifications.
What truly got us into this mess was a seriously corrupt superintendent and CFO making questionable financial claims under the guise of economic miracles, coupled with a board dominated by educational consultants who refused to question or provide oversight on even the most outrageous assertions. Adding to this was a toxic climate, fueled by racist attacks on candidates critical of the current administration during the last election. These attacks succeeded in muddying the waters. DPOE’s endorsements of the current regime’s candidates also had a significant impact on the broader electorate in Evanston.
Your last paragraph especially is my interpretation of events as well, well put.
I would encourage you to take a look at Biz's ridiculous slide show that Tom has somewhere in his archives where she explicitly says that ANY critique of Horton was simply White Rage.
That's pretty much identity politics run haywire and explains why the Board hired someone seriously corrupt as superintendent and let him run wild.
It has been mentioned on these pages before, but the ONLY rationale ever given for the Foster School--by Horton or the board--was to "right the wrong" of closing Foster fifty years ago. The rationale is entirely symbolic and entirely driven by a nostalgia by a small number of old timers to Make The Fifth Ward Great Again.
The main reason it is being raised is due to the increased diversification that has come to the Fifth Ward over the past 20 years that some old timers in the neighborhood don't like.
There has NEVER been any information released by the district indicating that bussing has a negative outcome on learning.
The secondary rationale we heard to justify the school is that "everyone needs a school that they can walk to." Well, OK. That is fine, I guess. But if walking is really the priority, why didn't they look at changing the boundaries for Dewey or Kingsley, looking at the conversion of King Arts into a neighborhood school, or looking into Charter school options in existing spaces (like the Family Focus or the Civic Center).
None of this stuff was ever discussed.
To quote Horton the whole purpose of the new school is "to bring our babies home."
It is backward-looking and motivated entirely by identity.
I think we can hold two things in our heads at once: that 1) the over-reliance generally on identity politics has not been a fruitful policy endeavor and 2) that the folks in the fifth ward, especially the older folks, do have an identity that is tied to the history of Evanston and their experiences as black folks in the town.
I think if any neighborhood in Evanston comes to the Board requesting a school, we should attempt to honor that request - but within the context of a broader facilities plan. I think a Foster School could easily fit within that plan (new facilities are desperately needed) -- but that was never done. They still are unwilling to have these conversations, but instead just keep kicking the can to the D65 admin to do surveys or community meetings or whatever as the money burns.
I think D65 and the SAP committees and Horton really did everyone a disservice - they absolutely lied to the folks of the Fifth ward and used such divisive language that it's become such a black and white issue (literally) and I hate that for Evanston. It was all done for their personal gain at the expense of everyone in Evanston: white and black.
Wow, Evanston is off to a terrible start.
Also, curious if any of the current incumbents faced filing challenges, or if this is simply an attempt for the Evanston Machine (just bc it’s wrapped in a progressive cloak doesn’t mean it isn’t a machine) trying to force clarity on the slate.
Or maybe no current member ever made a bureaucratic error in their filing? Seems unlikely, given their performance on the board.
I appreciate Christian S. for being transparent that this wasn’t some random thing.
None of the current incumbents are running. They are giving other reasons but none have the stomach to face voters after pushing the District to the brink of insolvency.
Oh, I know. I meant when they filed to run in past elections.
First, I agree with Brandon Utter that the objections are "absurd" -- we shouldn't be looking to toss candidates based on technicalities and it should be the clerk's office responsibility to ensure the candidates are following the rules and file the correct paperwork -- isn't that their job?
Having said that, it's certainly possible that Neal Weingarden found things they missed.
1.) Brandon lives in Skokie, not Evanston Tom. :) So your personal attestation was off. Of course, he does live in D65's boundaries and thus is allowed to run for school board. My reading of the objection is not that Brandon doesn't live in the district, but the address he supplied on his application is different than the address he is registered against to vote. Do those need to match? I have no idea, but seems like Weingarden seems to think so and says that they don't match. Is that enough to toss someone off the ballot? Again, no idea, up to the courts to decide, but would seem very trivial if the individual moved and is qualified to run based on their current address.
2.) For Peter Bogira, seems like Weingarden didn't see the statement of economic interest because the CLERK'S OFFICE neglected to scan it and put it in the public domain. So, he was actually "correct" that it didn't exist yet, but not because Bogira didn't do it, simply because the clerk's office hadn't made it available. When notified of this snafu on the clerk's side and subsequent fix, Weingarden has stated he is going to withdraw his objection for Bogira.
3.) I have no insights whatsoever into the Anita Opdycke objection.
With regard to Brandon, I don't know him and know nothing about him.
But with regard to a potential discrepancy between the address on his voter registration and that on his paperwork, it makes absolutely no difference.
The voter registration file has no magical authority. People move all the time and when you file your petitions all you have to do is attest that you live in the district.
You actually don't even have to be registered to vote to run for office!