The Contract - At Last!

On May 21, almost three and a half years after I submitted my initial Freedom of Information Act request to District 200, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled in my favor and ordered District 200 to disclose the employment contract of former superintendent Dr. Gary Catalani.  A copy - along with some of the performance goals - is available for download on the CONTRACT DATA page (click on link at left).  The Court stated:  “We hold that an employment contract is not the kind of record the General Assembly intended to keep from public view and does not fall within the exemption for personnel files in section 7(1)(b) of the Act.  The superintendent’s contract must be disclosed.”  I want to thank my attorneys, Shawn Collins and Rob Dawidiuk of The Collins Law Firm PC, for their tireless efforts in a case that has set a precedent for openness in government statewide.

District 200 taxpayers should hold board members Andrew Johnson, Rosemary Swanson, Barbara Intihar, Ken Knicker, Marie Slater, JoAnn Coghill and John Bomher personally responsible for wasting over $62,000 of taxpayer money on District legal fees in their fight to keep this information secret from you, the taxpayer, who is paying for it.  The Board refused to disclose the contract to the public even after (1) a copy was given to the Daily Herald newspaper, (2) a Chicago Tribune reporter was allowed to read a copy; (3) Attorney General Lisa Madigan sent the District TWO (2) letters telling them to disclose it, and (4) the Illinois Appellate Court ruled unanimously that it must be disclosed.  They chose to fight all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court.  They also tried to pick and choose who among the public could see it, based on who they liked and didn't like.  That is unAmerican.

What were they hiding?  The contract is now in the public domain, and a copy is available on the Download Files page (SUPERINTENDENT CONTRACT).  Here are some highlights of the fringe benefits Catalani received, with references to the contract sections in which they appear:

·                    GUARANTEED 20% ANNUAL RAISES REGARDLESS OF PERFORMANCE.  Once he gives notice of retirement, he is guaranteed 20% annual raises for the last three years of employment.  There is no requirement that he meet any performance goals.  (22)

·                    MORE THAN FIVE WEEKS OF PAID VACATION A YEAR.  28 paid vacation days a year (First Addendum, B(2)) – that’s five weeks and three days.  He can accumulate them without limit, can cash in up to 12 days a year (25 days in 2002-3, First Addendum, A), and gets paid in full for whatever he has accumulated, even if fired.  (12)

·                    OVER A YEAR OF PAID SICK DAYS.  When he was hired in 1999 the Board gave him a “bank” of 185 paid sick days – a full school year!  He then gets 18 more paid sick days every year that accumulate without limit.  On retirement, he gets paid for the 185 sick days he was given – roughly 10 months’ additional salary.  (11)

·                    NO INSURANCE PREMIUMS, DEDUCTIBLES OR COPAYS.  The District pays all of the “employee” share of retirement contributions, insurance premiums, and Medicare taxes.  (6)  The District pays 100% of his deductibles and co-payments.

·                    INSURANCE THROUGH 2021 FOR HIM AND FAMILY.  The District pays 100% of insurance costs, deductibles and co-payments for him and his family, including children until they’re 26 or become employed.  This continues after retirement until he’s 71 – in 2021.  He has a new job, and we’re still paying his benefits!  (13; First Addendum, B(3))

·                    GENEROUS SEVERANCE.  He can’t be fired for failing to meet performance goals (20(D)).  If he were terminated “without cause” for failure to meet performance goals, he’d get 2 years salary, plus full benefits for him and his family until he is eligible for Medicare (in the year 2015).  (20(E))

·                    FULL DISABILITY.  Full pay for 90 days following disability, then a District-paid disability policy for 70% of full salary to age 65.  If he is injured on the job, he gets workers compensation in addition to the disability payments.  (15)

·                    NOTHING ABOUT HUBBLE.  This was never about Hubble Middle School.  The Board guaranteed this generous compensation package without regard to achieving any performance targets whatsoever.

UPDATE:  we have now also obtained some of the "performance goals" referenced in the contract.  While these are interesting, it is important to remember that under the contract (paragraph 20(D)), "Failure to achieve the goals established ... shall not be a basis for just cause termination."  In other words, achievement is optional, and if Catalani had been fired for failing to meet goals, he would have been entitled to 2 years' severance pay.  (paragraph 20(E)) 

Some of the goals are reasonable and easily measurable - for example, to increase overall performance on reading assessments by 3% (12/13/06, goal 3).  Some are probably impossible to attain - for example, develop a process that "accurately predicts future state funding for schools" (8/5/03, goal 3, objective 2).  Some involve jargon - for example, "Identify the 'Hedgehop Concept' for District 200" (8/5/03, goal 1, objective 1, activity 1).  Some appear geared to re-electing incumbent board members, for example, specific targets for media appearances, with the objective being publicity for the board members, not tied to any specific district activities or projects (7/14/04, goal 3).  It also appears, based on goals as far back as 2001-2002, that the decision to move Hubble was preordained (5/27/03), based on assumptions contained therein.

The Reform Journey Continues

The April 7 elections results show that the two reform candidates – George Kocan and Charles Pfeister – fell short in their bid to bring change to District 200.  While I’m disappointed, I want to thank both of them for making the personal sacrifices to run a campaign and give voters a choice.  It’s hard to unseat entrenched incumbents, particularly when they are supported by powerful and well-funded interest groups.  After all, Illinois voters didn’t remove Rod Blagojevich when they had the chance – they reelected him.  For those of you who blame George Bush for everything from the common cold to male pattern baldness, remember he was reelected too (and by a wider margin).  Even Barack Obama has never defeated an incumbent – the one time he tried, he lost big.

But, we’re gaining on them.  Consider the difference in vote totals from these incumbents’ last election four years ago, versus 2009:

Four years of deficit spending ago, all the incumbents had much higher margins.  If the incumbents enjoy the wide support they claim, why have both their vote totals and percentages of support declined so dramatically?  The challenge we face for the future is to reach out to the over 90% of the electorate who did not vote for the incumbents.  Based on the trend of declining support for the status quo, we can meet that challenge.  The Board believes that voter apathy is its mandate.  If you did not vote, don't complain when your child's music and sports programs are cut, and when your property taxes are increased.  But if you want reform and change to improve our schools and protect taxpayers, please join me and get involved. 

I will continue to work for reform in District 200, and I hope you will too.

STATISTICAL NOTE:  I was the only reform candidate in 2005, whereas there were two this time.  However, this doesn't affect the above analysis for a simple reason:  the incumbents are a package deal in every respect – they vote in lockstep and have always urged the electorate to do the same in board elections.  If one assumes (as the board does) that there is an informed electorate that knows who the board members are and agrees with them, all the board supporters would always vote for all the incumbents, no true board supporter would vote for me or any other challenger, and it would make no difference how many challengers there were on the ballot.  The number of challengers only makes a difference with respect to people who (1) vote for both challengers and incumbents (such people, by definition, aren’t rabid board supporters or they would never vote for a challenger like me, George, or Charles), OR (2) vote randomly (which again undercuts the "community mandate for the board" argument).  Thus, there are signs for hope in the incumbents' shrinking margins.

FOIA MEDIA COVERAGE

For those interested in reading the media coverage (Chicago Tribune, Daily Herald, and Wheaton Sun) of District 200's ongoing contract coverup, see the following links: