Superintendent’s article sent the wrong message
In response to the Progress’ piece, “Superintendent’s article spurs controversy,” Dr. Baule said he drafted his MySpace publication in February 2007, “before he met Joel Price” with the final version completed in August 2007. Here are some article excerpts from the Progress establishing their acquaintance before August:

• 4/18/07 — District 201 incumbents win re-election: The write-in candidates, said to have 40 percent of the vote in three weeks of work, is something to be proud of, candidate Price said.

• 6/24/07 — School Board reverses closed session policy after contacted by state: Price decided to write the Attorney General after sending two e-mails to the board without a response. A July 16 letter from the AG’s office indicated the district is, in fact, in violation.

• 9/27/07 — School Board Defies Attorney General regarding superintendent contract: “I don’t think it’s in the district’s interest to have my goals listed in the contract on Mr. Price’s Web site for everyone to see,” Baule said.

• 11/21/07 — Parent frustrated with communication: Baule called Mr. Price’s frequent requests for information “asinine.”

Baule’s article, titled “Free Speech in a MySpace World,” states, “If a student’s MySpace page is soliciting funds to hire a hitman for Mrs. Smith or Mr. Price, is that a threat?” Then nothing more is said about Mr. Price. So is that a threat? When you look at the history, it’s dubious. Plus, this exposé is a collaboration between Baule and an attorney who is a partner at the law firm that represents 201, which raises more questions.

According to 201 policy, “The superintendent is the district’s chief spokesperson ... earn the public's good will, respect, and confidence...” If Baule wanted to promote “good will,” why didn’t he edit his final version? A superintendent is supposed to be above the appearance of such pettiness. He is at the forefront of our children’s education, and thus he is supposed to be helping to form them educationally, and in part, morally. So whether or not Baule “intended” to set an example, he did. Is this really what we would like our children to emulate?
Dena Giuliano, Westmont

District 58 board member responds to criticism
Last year, I sought election to the District 58 Board of Education in order to further my belief that by streamlining operations and cutting waste, we can direct a greater portion of our generous resources “into the classroom,” and enhance the educational opportunities for our children ... without imposing additional tax burden on the community.

After 12 months on the board, I have yet to alter that opinion, and to date, I have played an instrumental role in shedding light on millions of dollars of wasteful spending and mismanagement of resources within District 58.

Disappointingly, the very analytical skills that have allowed me to take a critical look at practices governing a sum of money that is quickly approaching the magnitude of 5 percent of the district’s annual property tax revenue, have increasingly put me at odds with a board majority and administration.

Their continuing pattern and practice of obstruction have become so blatant that former board member Tom Cunningham has suggested that district administrators and the board should just “ignore me.”

As evidence, I have only to refer to the debacle that has ensued over my request to attend a Feb. 13 Financial Advisory Committee meeting, where the agenda centered around a proposed $10 million bond issuance that would not require voter approval ... but which would impose additional tax burden on our community.

When I learned of the critical subject matter, I urged the meeting structure be changed from a committee to a regular board format so I could not only attend but also contribute my financial expertise.

My request to board President Joe Leo was met with the following: “You’re welcome to show up, but this is not a posted meeting of the BOE; you can observe but not participate.”

Essentially, in response to my strong desire to have input on a financial matter with potential tax ramifications, I was told that I could be present ... but was admonished to duct tape my mouth.

In a somewhat surreal scenario, the board is now accusing me of violating the Open Meetings Act and is prepared to censure me. I am puzzled as to how my presence at the meeting “broke the law,” as is being alleged, when I accepted a blanket invitation that was extended to the entire board, and I abided by the established rules regarding participation.

In my opinion, the real issue has little to do with this particular meeting, and everything to do with continuing efforts to neutralize the effectiveness of a board member who is attempting to bring new transparency and accountability to the business of the board.

To that end, I am intent on making public a side of this matter that has not been adequately reported or fully represented to the community.

I would also encourage the citizens of District 58 to speak up and be heard. As your elected official, I have been told to sit quietly in the corner and shut my mouth. Maybe the board will allow you to speak.
Scott O’Connell, Downers Grove Grade School District 58 board member