Election 2011: District 86 Candidates on the Master Facilities Plan

What would you like to see happen with the Master Facilities Plan during the next District 86 School Board’s term?

I would like to see community conversation and involvement in the next phase of the Master Facilities Plan. This plan is the district's effort at being proactive in building improvements and safety issues instead of being reactive or hasty when problems arise. Educating the community as to why a plan is needed by offering tours of each school, input and dialogue is essential. Understanding all aspects of the plan and the reasons why improvements are necessary is important for public support.  

I would like to see the Master Facilities Plan used as a tool to help with future projects and improvements. It is a plan and can be changed at any time. It is a document that should be used by future boards, and I hope that it is not just stuck on a shelf some where.

I think further discussions on the plan are necessary. The board does not yet have a full understanding of the various costs involved with pieces of the plan. Clearly, the current economic environment will play a role in my thoughts and opinions. 

Long-term planning is both legitimate and necessary. Valuable resources were expended in this planning process, and the product merits analysis modeled after the consideration one would give before committing one’s own resources to a major expenditure—on an order exceeding the entire annual revenue of the enterprise. (Think about the thought you would put into committing to expend an amount significantly greater than your annual household income.)

The plan needs more definition—it is too nebulous to be analyzed in detail. I will not commit resources of that magnitude to a plan that is not more fully presented—to the board and the public. 

Short and long-term planning are necessary. The plan needs more definition—it is too nebulous to be analyzed in detail and appears to be overpriced, as proposed. In my opinion, the plan does not treat all of the students and communities within District #86 fairly or equitably. Sufficient detail and accountability must be analyzed before resources of that magnitude are approved. This includes public input. The analysis must include a good look at the district’s financial resources and the communities’ willingness to be the funding mechanism. It is precisely because we are concerned about the future of our communities that more analysis of this plan occur. Much of the plan pursues noneducational dreams that have minimal educational benefit for our students, while programming at both campuses take a back seat. 

Assuming adequate detail, the plan must be analyzed for elements requiring urgent action. Any such urgent elements should receive immediate attention. Nonurgent items should be re-studied. The Plan was not developed with input from the full community, therefore it is flawed. Those involved with the plan’s development are not the issue—the issue is who did not participate. 

First of all, the process was terribly flawed. Therefore, the end result, the Master Facilities Plan, is irreparably flawed. There never was an attempt by the board and administration to get input from the community. There was a preordained outcome desired (which at one point was a brand new Hinsdale Central) with a self-selected steering committee that included only two parents (one of whom was candidate Jennifer Planson) and NO community members. Throughout the process, board member Dianne Barrett asked repeatedly what is the cost and where is the money coming from. She was told repeatedly "financing is not part of this process. We will do cost and financing later.” Very irresponsible. There are a number of “nonstarters” in this package. These non-starters that no one in the community wants are the parking garage at Central and the new administrative center. In an economy as brutal as the one we are facing, when our neighbors are losing their homes, to ask the community to pony up at least $125 million for a wish list is incredibly irresponsible.

Assuming adequate detail, the plan must be analyzed for elements requiring urgent action. Any such elements should receive immediate attention and, if the need is proven, implementation.

Nonurgent items should be re-studied. The plan was not developed with input from the full community. Those involved with the plan’s development were good, qualified people whose judgment is trustworthy; however, the qualifications of those who participated are not the issue—the issue is those who did not participate. 

In the course of a re-study, I would not wait until the very end to introduce budgetary considerations.