del.icio.us
E-mail this
Facebook
In the throes of a tough reelection campaign, 32nd Ward alderman Ted Matlak apparently tried to make a few Bucktown parents happy by lobbying Chicago Public Schools officials to expand enrollment at the local Drummond Montessori Magnet School, where admission is determined by a lottery that limits the number of children admitted from the immediate neighborhood in order to promote diversity. He ended up fueling a bitter controversy there, as the Chicago Journal reported this week.
After the story came out, the local school council scheduled a meeting for April 11. That evening at least 60 people—including Matlak's challenger in this coming Tuesday's runoff election, Scott Waguespack—jammed into the school library. Sabrina Craig, chair of the council, announced at the beginning of the meeting that neither she nor other council members would be able to answer any questions—they were just there to listen.
For the next hour, as the LSC members and principal Isabel Mesa Collins remained silent at the front of the room, parents took turns speaking, often emotionally, about their love of the school and their commitment to diversity. But they also argued vehemently, often questioning each other’s motives and integrity.
Some argued that it was only fair for kids who live across the street to be able to attend the school, while others said if parents were interested in neighborhood schools, they should check out Burr School, a few blocks away. A couple of parents were concerned that the space crunch would force three- and four-year-old students to nap in the basement, prompting a father to respond that when his daughter was asleep, her eyes were closed and it didn’t matter where she was.
They couldn’t agree on who the new classroom would benefit or how fair the process of getting it funded had been. In fact, they couldn’t even agree on exactly what had been agreed to.
“I guess my concern is, how does a group of parents who are not even at the school get to make a decision for parents who are already in the school?” said one mother of a Drummond student. “I don’t have the money, I don’t have the clout, to walk into the alderman’s office and make radical changes that are going to affect people currently in this institution.”
“I am one of those parents whose child did not get in, and I do live five doors down,” said Bucktown resident Jennifer Kelly. She emphasized that she understood and respected the fact that a lottery decided who was admitted. “But I kind of resent these letters being passed around that say there’s a small group of people in the neighborhood who are well-connected. I don’t have any money. I didn’t give any money to any organization. I don’t know the alderman. I went into the alderman’s office and I asked for a meeting. Everybody’s entitled to that.”
Waguespack left without speaking to get to another event, and a few minutes later Matlak walked in and delivered something between a campaign pitch and a lecture.
“It was brought to my attention that this has become controversial,” he said. “It’s finally come to a point where people want to come to our neighborhood schools. Now we had a situation where parents came to me, not just that group that came in and saw me, but individual parents who called me and came in on their own, saying, ‘We can’t get in to this school—it’s a good school, and we want to be there.’ I saw that the only solution to that was to add capacity.”
Schools chief Arne Duncan had agreed to fund another teacher, Matlak said, and he would find city money for capital improvements if he needed to. “But people are asking me questions about which kids, how, what. I don’t know. This was supposed to be a good thing,” he said. “If bringing resources in is bad, I don’t know what I’m doing as alderman, because that’s what I do. People are asking me where the nap room is going and all those things. I don’t know.”
Sumi Cho, a Drummond parent who lives in the South Loop, raised her hand to ask a question. “Are you willing to consider rescinding the the [new] early childhood classroom in light of the fact that there are so many questions about the process, and the appearance, at least, of impropriety in light of the impending runoff election?”
Matlak looked like he'd been slapped. He said he’d never heard of a school returning resources. “And I don’t know what you mean by ‘impropriety,’” he said. He asked Cho if she wanted him to take back money he’d secured for a new playground-park at the school. “And my campaign paid for those [traffic] barricades out there. You want me to take those back too?”
Craig, the LSC chair, interrupted. “I’m going to cut the dialog. I’m sorry, but we’re here to listen—”
“That’s fine,” Matlak said. “Just so you guys don’t think I unilaterally decided this and I can unilaterally undecide it. This was a big lobbying effort and we were successful. If you want to tell Arne Duncan we don’t want the resources, I’m sure he’ll put them someplace else.”
“Thanks a lot,” said Craig.
“I think this is a good thing,” Matlak said. “Any time we can bring resources into the schools, into the parks, that’s good. How it gets done, I don’t know. I’m Kennedy, I was told, ‘Let’s go to the moon,’ I got the money.”
The room broke into equal parts of applause and grumbling. The alderman thanked everyone and left.
Before the meeting ended, though, Mark Neidlinger, Drummond’s Montessori director, said he’d just received some school data from CPS: nearly half of Drummond’s students already live within a mile and a half of the school--more than many parents on either side of the issue expected. And apparently more than Matlak had assumed.
On Thursday, Matlak addressed the controversy with considerably less bluster than he'd shown the night before. In a vaguely worded statement, he said that he was working with CPS administrators and the school’s faculty and parents to “make the best decisions possible for the short- and long-term future of Drummond.” He added: “The [CPS] Office of Academic Enhancement revealed today that the percentage of neighborhood children who attend Drummond is much higher than previously thought.”
The Alderman should be doing something about the explosive number of TIF's that is denying our schools the funding it will desperately be needing in the coming decade - (and I have little faith in those morons at the state level who have created another nightmare by raiding the pension obligations rather than making some tough decisions. Yet one more thing these kids will have to end up paying for.)
This is poor electioneering - last minute - unnecessary - intrusive meddling from a Hack who doesn't even know that nearly half of the student body all ready comes from the neighborhood.
If he were truly concerned about the state of schools in the 32nd ward - he would be listening the LSC’s and principles who are nearly begging for more affordable housing options, rather than the uncontrolled gentrification that is driving young families out of the city.
Vote out all the incumbents for those of you lucky enough to be in ward were there is a run off - these people don't do anything for three years - and then try and take credit for anything decent happening in our city - and taking no responsibility for their three years of inattention and unimpressive record as a council.
"TIFF's" = Tax Increment Financing Fraud.
Thanks, John, for your honesty.
It would help if there was some transparency in the TIF programs - if the taxpayers had some say on what and how they would like their money, our money, allocated. That is what an alderman should be doing, working toward transparency of how our city operates, stop giving millions of dollars to Target corporation and telling the people of Chicago they are fighting for the “working class” simply because they voted for the “big box” ordinance – this is a fraud. We are subsidizing these corporations with millions of our tax dollars to give out a few low paying jobs in order to sell some cheap imported shit no one needs, and the unions stand by and don’t even let the people of Chicago know that the real issues are going to be a pension system that the tax payers will have to foot the bill for, probably with our convoluted property taxes that will punish the home owners, not those with large rental properties or businesses, those owners have the county assessors review board in their pockets (they fund their campaigns).
If Mr. Flanagan, and Mr. Matlak, don't understand that the job of an alderman is NOT to be attempting to show you can deliver at election time a minuscule amount of resources toward one school while allowing these kids to inherit an under funded pension system and bankrupt school system because our elected officials cannot break away from using patronage hiring, and now our TIF funds, in order to benefit just enough folks so that they remain in office (you need those foot soldiers that Tomzack sent over) for such unimpressive accomplishments.
The gig is up - those of us who are paying for this deceptive politics are catching on - including those in the press. And just Ben Javorsky and Mike Dumke who are doing a great job here at the Reader - even the mainstream press is getting it. Check out Mark Browns column in the Sun-Times
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/341570,CST-NWS-...
All it takes to get rid of these crooks is to vote them out.
All it takes to vote them out is the determination of enough citizens to do so.
"essential #1
March 24th - 5:11 p.m.
Sometimes I wonder if those who don't vote or don't register to vote understand how much of their hard earned income is wasted by the gross mismanagement and misuse of the tax dollars we all are forced to 'pony up'.
Property Taxes, (part of your rent, if you don't own property AND part of the price you pay for everything you buy, goods and services, 'cause the businesses you buy from pay the same or greater taxes than you do.)
Sales taxes of all kinds.
Income taxes, both state and federal.
Licenses, Fees, Fines, Permits, etc. (also passed on to the consumers)
Utility taxes, in addition to the sales taxes, which juice your utility bills.
Mystery taxes you may or may not see, and couldn't know what they're for anyway.
What's the calculation now, something like 40% - 45% of our GROSS income is taken from us in taxes.
Every year we work from January 1st until mid May and ALL of our income earned during that time goes directly into the pockets of some government agency.
Granted, many things that government uses our tax dollars for are beneficial to us all.
Many, however, are not.
Yet, year after year, decade after decade, there still seems to be a steady 70% - 80% of our fellow citizens who either don't vote or don't even bother to register.
Our 'elected officials' pay lip service to 'getting more people to register', and only make efforts to do so that benefit their particular political party.
WAKE UP, WAKE UP, SLEEPY VOTERS!
Our fates are in our own hands."
and
"The problems, however, remain the same.
1) Of all citizens who qualify to vote in a given electoral area, (city, township, county, state, federal, etc.), what percentage are registered to vote?
2) Of those registered, what percentage actually vote?
3) Of those who do vote, what percentage cast their vote strictly by political party?
4) Of those who do vote, what percentage cast their vote for clearly arbitrary or capricious reasons?
5) Of those who do vote, what percentage cast their vote as a result of believing political 'propaganda', ie., campaign advertising?
6) Of those who do vote, what percentage cast their vote as a result of the desire to work toward eliminating corruption in government?
7) Of those who do vote, what percentage cast their vote for substantially self-interested reasons? (clout job, clout contract, clout influence, etc.)
As is obvious, the vital element needed, for meaningful and effective change, is maximum voter registration and participation.
Until the vast majority of citizen-taxpayers realize fully how costly corruption is, we will not likely see the participation of enough voters to overcome the core numbers loyal to the 'politics-as-usual' crowd."
and
"First off, tho it runs counter to popular opinion, there actually ARE many city, county and state workers who do their jobs and do them well.
Not only THEIR jobs, but the jobs of those 'clouted' pseudo-workers, who, when they show up at all, are so incompetent that it's, better to cover for them, then to let them screw up all day long.
It's called 'baby-sitting'.
Every hard-working, honest city, county or state employee has had, at one time or another, to 'cover' for these leeches, but one learns to look at this as the price that must be paid, if you're gonna stay employed.
While it appears that these recent developments MAY do some good, the more effective solution to the corruption will always be to rid ourselves of the sources of these 'clout monkeys', namely, elect honest people to public office.
Okay, you can stop laughing! IT AIN'T FUNNY!
IT'S EXPENSIVE!
IT MORE THAN DOUBLES YOUR FRIGGIN' TAX BILL!
And paying much more in taxes is just the tip of the iceberg of harmful effects inherent in continuing to retain the hacks who pass for our representatives.
The weasels have many tricks in their weasel playbook, some obvious and some quite subtle.
Until such time as the non-participants unite, with the effective power of the votes they do not, at present, see fit to cast, the same old faces will continue to rule.
REGISTER TO VOTE.
VOTE ON ELECTION DAYS.
VOTE OUT THE INCUMBENTS.
START FRESH WITH A CLEAN BOWL.
TRY IT, YOU'LL LIKE IT."
and
"The methods employed, by those who hold true democracy in disdain, are an impressive variety of scare tactics, slight of hand, arrogant dismissals of citizens concerns, stonewalling and plain bold faced lies, usually coated in a thin veneer of truths.
Whether one considers things on a local, state or national level, the norm is frustratingly consistent in discouraging the common man or woman from participating in their own governance.
I believe it is worth trying to play the election game, not by the rigged rules of those in power, but by avoiding the many roadblocks entirely.
That's what the WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT concept may be able to accomplish.
Not that a permanent revolving door voting strategy is the complete and viable solution, but that it's the most effective means to stimulate the elements that must thrive, for a democracy to be more than a playground for those skilled at manipulation, deception and exploitation.
Individuals need to experience the power and authority of their vote, if they are to have the confidence needed to make the effort to vote.
They need to see that the vote they cast succeeded in electing a candidate, and not merely the candidate who the 'pundits' predicted would win, but, rather, the candidate(s) the pundits assured the public had no chance whatsoever to win.
We love the underdog, because most of us ARE the underdog.
What more encouraging experience is there then to know that your vote counted, and counted big time, for one of your own.
The Retardicans and the Dumbocrats get to feel the thrill of victory and dominance all the time.
They don't have to think about who they're going to vote for at all.
All they have to remember, when casting their votes, is to vote a straight party ticket.
So, why should the neglected many not have a similar option? A similar strategy?
Thus, here is one to consider:
1) Determine which candidates are the INCUMBENTS and DO NOT vote for any of them.
2) If there are only two candidates running for any given office, all that the voter MUST
know is which one is the INCUMBENT, then vote for the CHALLENGER candidate.
3) If there are MORE than two candidates vying for a given office, determine if the incumbent is listed FIRST, and IF THIS IS SO, then vote for the challenger candidate who is listed LAST.
4) If the incumbent is NOT listed FIRST, then vote for the challenger candidate who IS listed FIRST.
5) If no incumbent is running for office, always vote for the LAST candidate listed.
The rule to remember is: WHEN IN DOUBT, VOTE THEM OUT."
"If you look at the schools in the 32nd ward, they are doing very well, "
spoken from someone who has exactly WHAT experience with the schools?
You wouldn't want your comments to be limited to only those who discovered them at the time you posted, would you?
I find that no one's opinion is painful to my ass, even those bona fide hack spammers' posts.
One can learn as much, if not more, from disagreeable opinions, as from those we heartily share.
I don't even find your present opinion to be a 'pain in my ass'.
That's what we are supposed to be striving for, respecting others' opinions, understanding others' opinions, regardless of how strongly we do not share them.
Thank you for expressing yours.
I think this meets the below definition:
"spam (spām) Pronunciation Key
n. Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
tr.v. spammed, spam·ming, spams
1. To send unsolicited e-mail to.
2. To send (a message) indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups."
But, I disagree with your belief that what I've posted fits your definition(s), to wit:
"Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail."
What's 'commercial' about encouraging citizens to participate in their Democracy, in a way which could alter the 'business-as-usual' crap that is passed off as 'in the best interests of the citizens'?
Also, in no way have I been posting 'indiscriminately', nor without considering the relevance of my comments to the subject(s) at hand.
Were this a comment board on articles not about politics, elections, politicians, political corruption, abuse and misuse of taxpayers' hard earned dinero, etc., you would have a point.
Also, "a verbatim cut and paste is spam" is also not true; how else is one to comment on a comment? In a clear and easily understood manner?
Again, I'll gladly take the time to re-write my comments, just to make you happy.
but you are being indiscriminate, as you aren't even making a passing mention to the individual blog subject matter, that's what IMO makes it spammish.
if you can tie your thinking to the *specific* subject matter being discussed, rock on & god bless.
Point taken.
We are all guilty of allowing them to do this, as those NOT profiting from 'the system' far outnumber those who do.
The basic human impulse to tolerate what appears to pragmatically be unchangeable is the primary reason why the relatively small minority of manipulators are so successful.
My posts concerning potentially effective strategies to thwart those employed by the manipulators are intended to stimulate focused thinking, by those who have been conditioned to not think 'too much' and by those who have become discouraged by the apparent immensity of the task at hand.
Make no mistake, it's an uphill battle, at best, to inspire in the vast number of non-participants to, in fact, realize the strength and power they have in their right to vote.
No honest person will likely ever attempt to seek public office when those 'in power' continue to so heavy-handedly dominate the election processes, nor as long as 'the people' continue to show such lack of appreciation, respect and value of their precious 'right-to-vote'.
When people seek to be 'led', their will always be those who exploit them, whether politically, socially and/or economically.
We, as a people, must lead ourselves, must think and act as responsible individuals, not as 'sheeple', seeking 'someone else' to tell us what to do, or not do, think, or not think, etc..
If we continue to accept, by our inaction, the few bones tossed to us by our 'leaders', bones bought and paid for with our hard earned incomes, we will remain a nation of self-deluding sheeple, not a nation of independent, free human beings.
Annnnnnnnd....... THERE OFF!!!
And Fast Teddy's poll workers weren't working too hard. They were all standing in a circle talking to each other. In the General, they were out there trying to give out palm cards to everyone approaching the polling place.
While the rest of you were out there going to school or playing little league or organizing the junior prom, I was representing my constituents and their concerns in City Hall.
I think it's good that things are shaken up a bit.
Which 'constituents' are you referring to?
The fly-by-night builders from DuPage and Lake counties?
The local, Crook county scumbags?
King Richie's pals and buddies?
Anyone who's had cash-in-hand, and the discretion skills to know how to keep their mouths shut, when anyone questions them?
Just who were all these 'constituents' whose 'concerns' you were addressing?
Buh bye Ted, you overstayed your welcome by about 9 years.
CONTACT: Rebekah Brooks
312-286-7134
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2007
Statement of Alderman Ted Matlak (32nd ward), regarding aldermanic
run-off election:
"Tuesday's election was very hard fought and spirited; it was the
closest of all twelve supplemental run-offs in Chicago. Unoffficial
results indicate that two votes per precinct, or 1.5 percent of the total vote cast for the office separate my opponent and me.
Given this slim margin, it was important to make sure that every single vote was counted.
After reviewing information provided to us by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, we are convinced that a significant number of absentee ballots have yet to be counted. We are confident that the vast
majority of those ballots support our candidacy. Those ballots,
together with the correction of some minor errors, would reduce the margin between myself and Mr. Waguespack even further to probably less than 100 votes out of nearly 8,300 cast.
"However, at the end of the day, Mr. Waguespack has barely won a very close election.
We will not subject the residents of the 32nd ward to the
uncertainty and divisiveness, nor our dedicated and loyal supporters to the cost and effort, of protracted litigation. The voters of the ward have spoken. We will abide by their decision.
"This is not about winners and losers. It was about making sure that the election results correctly reflect the will of the people of the 32nd ward. My wife, Gail, and I extend our congratulations to Mr. Waguespack and wish him well in his stewardship of the 32nd ward.
My wife and I have lived here for our entire lives, and are proud to
raise our daughters in the greatest urban neighborhood in the country. We have seen first hand how much this area has changed, for the better.
I take pride in knowing that I've been a part of that.
I am extremely passionate about our community and the legacy we will leave for our children. We need to continue to advance the agenda on environmental issues, promoting sustainable development and green technology.
Even though I will no longer serve the 32nd ward in an official
capacity, I will continue to be a vocal advocate for our families, making sure that our neighborhoods move forward.
I truly appreciate the dedication and hard work of all the
individuals who worked tirelessly on this campaign, and those who have supported me over the years. Together, we have made this community better place to live and work. To the residents who voted for me, my family and I thank you. To all residents of the 32nd ward: let's continue to work together make our neighborhoods the best in Chicago."
If the man had DONE the right things, instead of merely SAYING the right things, he might still be holding office.
We should all be grateful that he's been consistent enough at doing the latter, otherwise more people would still be believing his bullshit.
Thanks, ted, for making it possible to fire your ass.
Go to hell Matlak! The change happened dispite you! Your corruption had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.