I guess I would say if the argument is that there are adequate city offerings that could replace D65 you would think they would align the decision time to occur before Evanston's registration.
We've known there has been an operating deficit for months. The savings numbers for axing the D65 camp probably haven't changed in months. Why couldn't they have had this wrapped up by December or early January?
To be fair, it wasn't brought to the board as an agenda item with a vote attached, it was just an informational item.
I guess I would say if the argument is that there are adequate city offerings that could replace D65 you would think they would align the decision time to occur before Evanston's registration.
We've known there has been an operating deficit for months. The savings numbers for axing the D65 camp probably haven't changed in months. Why couldn't they have had this wrapped up by December or early January?
I complained so much about this back in October that waiting until January took away all their optionality. They could've approved this all back then.