D-112 Accused of Using Scare Tactics to Promote Referendum

The following letter was written and submitted by Gary Noah Savine.

As a member of District 112’s SCFFAC and its finance subcommittee, I believe it is my duty to share why I am voting NO on the reconfiguration referendum, particularly in the face of the District’s current campaign of misinformation and fear mongering.

Just last week, I received word that at least one D112 representative appeared before a PTO Presidents Council meeting earlier this week to voice dire predictions of a Plan B involving immediate, abrupt school closures and programming cuts that the District representative claimed inevitably would follow a “no” vote.

Let me repeat what the District’s statements have been until now: there is NO Plan B. Any claims to the contrary are dangerously misleading. They are also contradictory to everything else the District has said throughout this process. Let’s not forget, any Plan B would first need the approval of the full School Board, voted on in a transparent manner.

The Administration is supposed to keep quiet in the run up to the vote, in order to avoid exerting unfair influence or otherwise impede balanced, objective debate. The manner in which its representative behaved this week was meant to stoke fears in PTO leadership that would trickle down to all parents in emails, social media and conversation listing a parade of horrible, distorted consequences.

Trust me, I agree that the current state of District 112 is unsustainable. But the solution currently put forth is financially imprudent. And the District’s threats about what would happen if we choose not to spend $330 million dollars in principal and interest on bonds should be disregarded. Logically, there is no way the District would immediately allow our schools to simply collapse merely because the referendum fails.

The School Board is an elected group of fair-minded citizens, not the Soviet Politburo.

Given that we all are already bracing for more taxes due to state-level mismanagement, we owe it to ourselves not to rush to unnecessarily pile on an additional burden in the form of this large proposed bond. We must be sure that a rational amount is borrowed to support a sustainable plan. The current referendum fails those simple criteria.

Gary Noah Savine

Highland Park