|
November 11, 2009 - Johnson Elementary
One excellent idea District 200 has introduced is its Veterans’ Day program. For the last several years, the District has obtained a waiver from the state to hold classes on Veterans’ Day. It then brings in veterans to speak to students and holds special presentations at the various schools, including thank you events for veterans. The November 11 meeting included audiovisual presentations on these events and an in person commemoration for District staff who have relatives in the service. Students are getting a real life lesson in patriotism and an appreciation for those who serve our country, and the District is to be commended for this.
One area where the District could still use a dose of innovation is its drivers’ ed program. For the third time in two years the District is seeking a waiver, not to create an innovative program as it has for Veterans’ Day, but to tinker at the margins with its extremely expensive drivers’ ed program. In my public hearing comments (on the Download Files page, under “Drivers Ed”), I point out that while the District has cut teachers and arts programs, it pays its driving instructors huge salaries – $104,000 and $94,000, respectively. This is in large part the reason the District’s cost of over $800 per student is nearly double the $420 per student cost for the same instruction in the private sector. By giving students who take private instruction a credit of $170 against registration fees, the net cost to parents would stay the same (parents are already charged a $250 fee by the District if their child takes drivers’ ed), but the District would save over $100,000 a year. It would also allow more flexibility in scheduling and let students spend their school day on academic subjects. The Board has yet to act on this suggestion, which I’ve been proposing for the last two years.
The Board also adopted its 2009 tax levy. While there has been much doom and gloom about the fact that the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”, which controls the rate at which the Board can increase its tax collections) was at a record low in 2008, the levy presentation also disclosed that the 2007 CPI (used for last year’s levy) was at a record HIGH (at least for the last decade), a full 30% higher than the average for the prior 8 years. So the District’s revenues got an unexpected bump last year, yet the District still ran a multi-million dollar deficit. The District’s financial problems were exacerbated by the Board’s decision to grant generous 4.34% raises in December 2008 amid economic turmoil, even though the Board’s own goals (posted on the District web site) indicated that this did not need to be done until June 2009. The drop in CPI was already becoming apparent at the time the Board voted; had it waited even one more month, it would have had all the necessary data. It rushed its decision, in my opinion, because it wanted to garner union support ahead of the school board elections.
Board Member Bomher observed that many governmental units are suffering from budget deficits, citing the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago as examples. This brings up a couple interesting points. Both Illinois and Chicago have unlimited taxing power. So for those people who claim the “tax cap” causes the District’s budget problems, the ability to impose unlimited tax increases apparently isn’t a panacea. Also, Illinois and Chicago (like the City of Wheaton and most other government bodies) have actually seen certain tax revenues (sales and income) decline. They actually have to make do with less – the District, which has a stable property tax base, will get MORE property tax money next year – not much more, but it is certainly better off than governments whose revenues can decline with the economy. The problem everywhere is not lack of revenue, but excess of spending. The District, like most government bodies, spends as much as it can as fast as it can when times are good, then cries poor if revenue growth slows. Taxpayers don’t have the luxury of taking money from others; they have to budget, save for a rainy day, and cut spending when income drops. District 200 should be grateful for its stable property tax base and spend more judiciously.
October 28, 2009 - Madison Elementary
I did not attend this meeting.
October 22, 2009 - Special Meeting 6, School Service Center
October 15, 2009 - Special Meeting 5, School Service Center
As discussed on the front page, the Board approved Dr. Drury's separation agreement and announced that Dr. Charles Baker would serve as interim superintendent.
October 14, 2009 - Hubble Middle School
I did not attend this meeting.
October 14, 2009 - Special Meeting 4, Hubble-Warrenville
See report on front page. No action taken at this meeting.
October 13, 2009 - Special Meeting 3, School Service Center
See report on front page. No action taken at this meeting.
October 7, 2009 - Special Meeting 2, School Service Center
Today was also International Walk to School Day. We are awaiting the announcement of International "we have a superintendent" day. See report on front page. No action taken at this meeting.
October 5, 2009 - Special Meeting 1, School Service Center
See report on front page. No action taken at this meeting.
September 23, 2009 - Franklin Middle School
The meeting began with a public hearing on the 2009-2010 budget. I was the only speaker; a copy of my remarks appears on the download files page. At public comment, in response to the District's posting of benefits information as required by state law, I pointed out that the health insurance benefits the District is still paying for "retired" Superintendent Catalani (now working in Scottsdale, Arizona) will cost the District half a million dollars, and encouraged the Board to ask him to get insurance from his new employer, and stop our taxpayer subsidy to Scottsale. PTA Council President Mary Ann Uhen announced that total PTA gifts to schools were about $102,000 over the last year.
There were two standing ovations: one for Major Jack Irwin, a Franklin staff and Illinois National Guard member who has returned from service in Afghanistan (where he helped build schools and partner Franklin with an Afghan school), and one for Dr. Susan Wolfe, the principal of Franklin who will be retiring at year end.
Notable absences included Board President Johnson (10th regular board meeting he has not personally attended since January 2008), Board Member Bomher, and Superintendent Drury. For more information, see the front page under "Rumors".
September 9, 2009 - Pleasant Hill Elementary
I did not attend this meeting.
August 26, 2009 - School Service Center
The Board's "back to school" meeting was uneventful. With the fanfare over the new "green" Hubble, I pointed out that no one can safely walk to the new school (there are no sidewalks, as discussed in my article on the main page).
Staff also reported that the District will obtain approximately $3 million in federal "stimulus" funds. It can use about half this amount to replace its current spending (much as the State of Illinois has done with school funding); the balance will be used for additional special education programs including enhanced in school detention.
August 12, 2009 - School Service Center
As more fully detailed on the main page, I called for the immediate resignation of Board Member Ken Knicker due to repeated conflict of interest votes.
The Board also heard the initial presentation of the 2009-2010 budget. Despite the doom and gloom over the consumer price index, projected property tax revenues will increase 2.06% over last year, but District spending will increase more, so a deficit of $7.6 million is projected.
July 8, 2009 - School Service Center
The Board held its meeting for July and received more bad news on state and federal funding. The District is still short about $3.5 million of state funding due for last year; additionally, the state basically used federal money from the so-called stimulus package to offset state direct aid. Federal funds also have to be tracked and there are significant restrictions on how they can be spent. $2.9 million is promised (see above as to how likely that it will all arrive, and how likely it will arrive in a timely manner) over 2 years. The District can use 1/2 of the "stimulus" money on current programs. However, the remainder must be used for new programs, and that funding ceases after the 2 year period.
All this demonstrates, once again, the vital importance of local control of school funding. Anyone who wants to sacrifice guaranteed property tax revenues for a promise of greater state/federal support through other tax increases is a fool. My recommendation for greater state aid - which I've made before - is to increase significantly the property tax credit available on our state income tax returns from the current minimal 5% level. This would provide real relief for homeowners while avoiding a siphoning of money to Springfield.
Under the category delusions of grandeur, it was also reported that the District deems the dedication of the new middle school in Warrenville to be a significant national event, so much so that it has invited President Obama to attend. It has yet to be determined whether his schedule will allow this. On second thought, given that he never attended a public school, nor have his children, it might be a valuable experience for him to visit.
July 3, 2009 - Nepotism
The Board has posted for public comment a proposed new policy (revisions to Policy 5.30) banning nepotism in District hiring. As is well known, a current Board member would be in violation of this policy if it were adopted, except for the fact that it contains a grandfather clause exempting current instances of nepotism. Read my comments on the Download Files page.
June 18, 2009 - Hubble Steering Committee
Another meeting of the Hubble Steering Committee piloted the process by which the City's consultants, S.B. Friedman, will conduct focus groups, to help them decide what they should seek to have built on the Hubble site. Friedman noted that we will "have to watch [the amount of] retail to avoid cannibalizing downtown." He also stated that multi-use commercial buildings are much more difficult to finance, citing the example of Block 37 in downtown Chicago, which remained vacant for almost 25 years.
As with the design charette, which I attended, the focus group is a brainstorming session, with ideas from the possible and sensible to the completely impractical. It was suggested that the storm water issues have to be resolved definitively before it is worth while speculating on what might be built.
Park District executive director Mike Benard disclosed that almost 40,000 user hours a year (persons times hours used) would be lost if the four Hubble gyms and multiple athletic fields are lost. While in theory the programs could be moved to four elementary schools, this would result in a four fold cost increase to the Park District (and sports participants and/or Wheaton taxpayers), since four staff, not just one, would have to monitor the buildings, one at each site, instead of one central location. The new Hubble is not viewed as likely to be available, since Warrenville is in "pole position" for use of the facility; in addition, the new school is not in the boundaries of the Wheaton Park District.
June 11, 2009 - Hubble Steering Committee
The Hubble Steering Committee is a joint task force of the City of Wheaton, Wheaton Park District, District 200, and various community members to consult with the City's Hubble consultant as it creates its "master plan" for the current Hubble site. I attended the June 11 meeting at Wheaton City Hall. Also in attendance were Board Members Andrew Johnson and Rosemary Swanson (who serve on the committee), as well as Dr. Drury, our superintendent. Board President Johnson, in response to a question, confirmed that the Board's promise to use any Hubble sale proceeds to reduce District debt is not legally binding. In other words, the Board, at any time, can vote to use that money for any purpose, so there is no guarantee that residents will see any property tax relief.
City Manager Don Rose stated that "costs would be prohibitive" to use the property for any type of flood relief for downtown, confirming that this claim, made during the election campaign by referendum supporters, was illusory. Park District director Michael Benard noted that of the 5 1/2 acre site owned by the Park District on the west side of Main Street, only 4300 square feet is even buildable - roughly the footprint of the existing Park District building.
Councilwoman Corry noted that the commitee must "manage expectations" regarding the property. Some of the community's current expectations, which will not be met, were generated by the New Wheaton Central Foundation, a political committee founded by Paul Colgan, who is also a registered lobbyist in Springfield for development interests. Mr. Colgan coordinated the "Charette" exercise in fall 2007, whereby various drawings of concepts to develop the property were created by committees as a brainstorming session and displayed to the community. Many Wheaton residents received copies the weekend before the Hubble referendum in a glossy brochure that was later found not to have complied with Illinois campaign finance law. Subsequently, another design exercise was held featuring University of Notre Dame architecture students, who came up with grandiose designs including triumphal arches and an outdoor amphitheater. None of these designs had the benefit of an engineering study relating to stormwater issues, so it is unlikely they are buildable, but they can be viewed on the City web site.
June 10, 2009 - School Service Center
The Board held a public hearing on a waiver from certain state requirements for drivers’ education classes. A change in state law now requires all behind the wheel training to be on the road; previously, the use of vehicle simulators was allowed. As a result, the District’s capacity to provide the courses has been restricted, waiting lists have been established for students, and for the first time, some students will not be able to take the course until they are seniors. The Board is seeking a waiver so it can use the simulators.
Last year, when the Board sought a waiver to allow it to charge parents a $250 drivers’ ed fee, rather than the state-permitted $50, I pointed out that the District’s cost per student is over $800, whereas private instruction is available for $495 (this year I found another program for $425). I urged the District to privatize, but the Board took no action. This year at the hearing, I urged the Board to consider giving students a credit toward student fees if they take driver training privately and relieve the District of the burden. This could be a win-win situation: the District would save several hundred thousand dollars a year, instructors could return to teaching academic subjects, and students would get their licenses sooner, which most students want (although perhaps not all parents). To their credit, Board members did listen and discussed the issue in detail, and I hope that we will see some movement in this direction.
A report on “21st Century Learning” indicated that Johnson Elementary students participated in a “Third Grade Leadership Academy” where they learned the “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by Steven Covey.
The Board requested an extension of the requirement to correct life safety deficiencies at Jefferson Preschool. Dr. Drury stated that none of the items have an impact on students. Remember this, because if/when the District moves forward on renovations at Jefferson, we will no doubt be told something different to justify the expense.
A community member (who had to wait through the entire meeting, due to the Board’s public comment policy) asked that the Board consider awarding advanced grade credit for participation in certain music ensembles. Currently, these are not eligible, which affects students’ GPA.
Board President Andrew Johnson was absent from the meeting.
May 27, 2009 - Pleasant Hill Elementary
I was on vacation and therefore absent from this meeting.
May 13, 2009 - Hawthorne Elementary
This report carries a strong tone, but frankly, I am outraged at some of what has been going on recently. To start on a positive note, Board members approved a new bus contract with First Student (formerly Laidlaw) that will cost the District roughly $200,000 LESS than the current contract (per 3/26/08 board materials), even though all buses will now have the additional features of GPS and cameras. This savings did not result from negotiations, but because, unlike last year and several prior years, the Board submitted the contract to competitive bidding. Even though the “incumbent” vendor was the low bidder, we got a better price. I take some credit for this; last year I contacted other bus companies to generate the interest in bidding. Although the Board refused to bid the contract last year, they were ultimately forced to bid the contract this year. Had they done so last year and gotten a lower price, we might not have had to lay off as many teachers.
But while the Board honored 15 and 25 year teachers for their work in the classroom, the Board approved the “full release” of the teachers’ union president, meaning that the District pays his full salary and benefits, not to teach, but to conduct full time union business. The District receives reimbursement from the union for part of the salary, but none of the benefit costs. This is a huge taxpayer gift to the union. According to Board Member Intihar, this benefit is “not without expectations” from the Board. I’ll say. Although I think she meant that she expects union bargaining concessions in the future (after the 4.34% raises the Board gave this year in the middle of a recession), this actually illustrates the symbiotic relationship between the Board members, who vote for generous contracts, and the union, which provides foot soldiers for the Board members’ reelection campaigns and thousands of dollars in political contributions (this issue has recently been highlighted at the College of DuPage). According to Dr. Drury, having the District pay the union president “offers tremendous value to the District.” But the District already has an assistant superintendent of human resources ($168,963 annually) and a director of human resources ($114,205), both with doctoral degrees, to handle personnel issues. The union will have a president regardless; it is not the taxpayers’ job to pay for him.
Board Vice President Swanson reported on the City of Wheaton Hubble Steering Committee meeting. Despite promises to the contrary by Friends of the Schools (Ralph Heatherington, Wheaton Leader, 1/29/08) that selling Hubble will “help address the long-standing problem of flooding along Main Street” it is now evident that this will not happen. Also, it is now claimed that the benefit of selling Hubble will extend to increased values of surrounding property. Given that the flooding issue won’t be resolved, that is questionable. Pointing out these facts is deemed “revisionist history” by Board members. Moreover, while the referendum was promoted for many reasons, no projections were ever made as to increased tax revenues from surrounding property. I challenge the Board to produce such materials. People are also questioning the Board’s valuation assumptions. Note that while the Board had in hand a February 24, 2006 appraisal of the Hubble property at $6.725 million, it claimed that same year that the “low end value of the Hubble property is approximately $20 million” (10/25/06), and Dr. Catalani assumed that Hubble would sell for “$20 to $30 million dollars” (5/29/07). The Board then obtained a November 15, 2007 appraisal, the only one it publicized, claiming the site was worth $21.75 million – TRIPLE the amount of the prior appraisal then just 18 months old.
I again called for the Board to implement a procurement and ethics policy. Board Member Intihar finds it “disgusting” that I am insinuating that the Board is involved with pay-to-play. I apologize if I merely insinuated; I meant to say very plainly that the campaign activities of Friends of the Schools are part of a pay-to-play culture with this Board. Board members like to set up, and knock down, the straw men of “bribery” and “extortion,” which are crimes. I do NOT, and have NEVER, accused any Board members of any such illegal activities. The problem with pay-to-play is that it IS legal, albeit unethical; that’s why Illinois politics is in the state it is. Pay-to-play does not mean express quid pro quo; it is simply the unspoken recognition that "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Even Board members recognizes this if they’re pushed; why else did several Board members “pay back” (in some cases several years after the fact) money FOTS spent promoting their campaigns? FOTS was founded and chaired from 2002 to 2007 by Board Member John Bomher, including while he was sitting on the Board. There is no evidence of an express quid pro quo. Nonetheless, the donor list of Friends of the Schools, available on the State Board of Elections web site, correlates very strongly with the list of no-bid contractors of the District. Again, no-bid contracts are too often entirely legal, they’re just not a good idea. See today’s (5/14/09) Chicago Tribune editorial. The fact that Board members refuse to ban campaign contributions from District vendors indicates they’re happy with the current system.
May 7, 2009 - Wheaton City Council Hubble Committee
The initial meeting of the City of Wheaton Hubble Steering Committee was held on May 7. Although I was not able to attend, my correspondents have provided the following information.
The committee is comprised of Wheaton City Council, Wheaton Park District, District 200 School Board, Downtown Wheaton Association, and Wheaton Chamber of Commerce representatives, along with a couple selected members of the community - approximately 15 people in total. It is chaired by representatives from S.B. Friedman, the consultant that was hired to do engineering and marketing studies to sell the property for the School District. The City Council hired these consultants and Wheaton taxpayers are paying them in excess of $300,000. According to Mayor Gresk at a meeting I attended, District 200 will reimburse the City for this amount upon sale of the property. District 200 has not confirmed that there is a lien or other claim on the property at this time.
Here are a few important facts that came out in the meeting and some of my comments, too:
1. The site is in a flood plain with poor soil conditions and of the 22 acres owned by the school only 11 acres are buildable. Essentially where the current building is limits what can be built on. The 10-year flood plain is almost the same as the 100 year flood plain. Much of the area, including the park district area on the west-side of Main St, must remain open land.
2. There is no solution that is financially viable to solve the flooding issues on Main St. as you look at redevelopment of Hubble. That area will continue to flood. The outflow pipes can not be enlarged for greater capacity. Any detention/retention pond will only be aesthetic in nature with very limited usefulness in storm water control and for smaller storms only.
3. Comments from my correspondent: The school board now recognizes that the figure they used to help pass the referendum to build the new Hubble will not be met. They used an appraisal value from Dec 2007, 60 days before the referendum, of $22 million for the Hubble property. They also said the sale of Hubble will help with Main Street infrastructure improvements. No one believes they will get close to $22 million and I have heard the expectation is maybe $5 million. I found out that the school board was given two other appraisals of Hubble prior to the referndum, one for $4 mill and the other $6 mill. They were also told by other independent sources that the area will always be a flood plain.
4. At the Hubble Meeting, school board member Rosemary Swanson was asked about the $22 million price tag they had assumed. She implied that the redevelopment of Hubble will still have a spill over affect of increasing values to surrounding properties which will help compensate for the lower sales price. I am certain this was not a well researched thought as the only spillover residents of South Hale St and South Main St will see is the flood waters after storms.
5. The following companies have showed a "Specific Interest in the Hubble Site" Costco, The Fresh Market and an apartment developer.
6. Projected Timeline for Development Process:
Phase I: Background and Analysis from now to August 2009
Phase II: Establish Development Plan Sep 09 to March 10
Phase III: Developer Solicitation and Selection April 10 to May 11
Phase IV: Negotiation Support June 11 til ...
April 15, 2009 - Bower Elementary, formerly Bower Middle School
The Board viewed a slideshow of last fall's severe flooding that caused well over $1 million in damage and affected the school for months. The hard work of teachers, staff, and community members in putting the school back together and persevering is to be commended. While the cost of the damage was almost entirely covered by insurance, unfortunately, given the fact that the entire building is in a flood plain, there's no guarantee that this won't happen again (in fact, over the winter the building had to be sandbagged again).
Most action items involved the issuance of $72 million in bonds. While the finance committee only recommended issuing $20 million in new debt, the District is going to refinance $52 million in existing debt also, but will not achieve interest rate savings. This is being done to manipulate the tax rate (which will cost more money in the long run), because the refinancing means that some of the new bonds will be taxable and therefore have a higher interest cost, and because the District has already reached its limit on the amount of non-referendum debt it can carry in certain years. Because the costs of issuing debt - including sales commissions - are primarily based on the amount borrowed, our issuance costs will be roughly 3.6 times the amount we should pay if we were only borrowing the $20 million. We also learned that the District's credit rating has been downgraded by Moody's, a major credit agency.
Phoning it in? Candidate Charles Pfeister attended and personally congratulated Board members Intihar and Knicker on their reelection. Newly reelected Board Member Coghill was absent. Newly reelected Board Member and President Andrew Johnson was not present, but participated by telephone. This meeting is the 8th regular meeting of the board at which the Board President has not physically participated since January 2008, out of 25 meetings in that time period (almost 1/3). This includes three meetings where he participated and voted by phone. In my view, if one is leading the board, one must lead by example. We've been asking parents to make sure our students are in class; do we need to place a phone call to Clifford Johnson? In the same period, absences for the other members were Coghill, 4, Intihar, 3, Slater, 1, Bomher, 1, Swanson, 1, and Knicker, 0. Full disclosure - I think I have missed two or three meetings in that same time frame, but of course I am not voting on anything.
March 25, 2009 - Lowell Elementary
The Board first held a public hearing on the $20 million in new borrowing it is proposing to balance the budget. Two individuals, including myself, pointed out that the new Illinois State Board of Education financial rankings, which were issued last week, place District 200 once again on Financial Early Warning. This puts us in the bottom 9% of districts statewide for financial health, and 41st out of 42 districts in DuPage. Some board members tried to pass the buck, blaming, for example, the amount of "exempt property" in the District. However, this explanation does not ring true, given that our low ranking is due in large part to low fund balances, and the board members admit that they chose to use fund balances for spending rather than ask voter approval for higher referenda.
Much of the remaining discussion centered on a resolution for reduction in force, that is, teacher layoffs. I pointed out that layoffs could have been avoided had the Board not passed out raises in December, before all data relating to this year's finances was in hand. Several high school students presented a petition with 149 signatures opposing certain cuts to the music program. These students had performed at the December board meeting at Edison, and pointed out that at that time, board members were effusive in their praise of the programs they are now cutting. One board member said that she was more interested in hearing from students than from community members "who have never been in a school." I also find student comments very informative, sometimes more so than some of the administrative presentations, and enjoyed the two board conversation meetings at the high schools. But I would also point out that community members pay for all this, whether they've been in the schools or not. Furthermore, students would have an easier time speaking if they did not have to wait until the end of the meeting due to the restrictive public comment policy the board approved last year.
March 17, 2009 - PTA Candidate Forum, Wheaton North High School
About 30 people attended the sole PTA candidate forum (in 2005 one was hosted at each high school), including candidates, board members and their supporters. Unfortunately, there was no media coverage. The four incumbents, along with independent Charles Pfeister, spoke. Of note, all candidates promised to serve their entire four-year term if reelected or elected.
March 11, 2009 - Wheaton-Warrenville South High School
The Board implemented 90 of the 96 proposed line item budget cuts. However, in the face of strong community opposition, the Board temporarily preserved "B" team sports at the middle schools, along with high school intramurals. This demonstrates that, particularly in an election year, the Board will respond to public pressure. Almost 1,000 people signed an on-line petition against cutting the sports items, and District students even started a Facebook group against the cuts.
For those items the Board wanted to cut, it deferred to "the recommendations of the administration" which knows best; for those items it wanted to keep, it found the administration's recommendations somehow less important. It appears that following the election, the "B" teams programs will eventually be cut from the budget and handed over to the Wheaton Park District (and perhaps also Warrenville Park District). Supposedly the Park District will run them similarly to the Rams football program, and they will remain on site at the schools; staff indicated that the fees will be the same as or less than the current $75. We'll see.
The only implemented cuts that were somewhat controversial were the elimination of counseling, dean, and supervisory positions at the high schools. Board President Johnson reported that Board Member Intihar did not want to make these cuts. However, Board Member Intihar did not attend the meeting, and the cuts did pass, 6-0. WWS South Principal Dr. Dawn Snyder said that staff would need to do more work, but she felt it could be accomodated. The Board also voted 6-0 to begin the process to issue $20 million in additional debt; there will be a public hearing prior to the March 25 board meeting at 7:30 p.m. at Lowell Elementary, 312 S. President, Wheaton.
March 3, 2009 - League of Women Voters Candidate Forum
All four incumbents along with challenger Charles Pfeister attended; I delivered an opening statement on behalf of George Kocan, who was unable to attend.
In response to a question, the incumbents all stated that they opposed disclosing the superintendent's contract to the public, and claimed that "the question has been answered by the courts and the answer is no." This is FALSE and the incumbents know it. The trial judge agreed with the Board, but the Illinois Appellate Court unanimously reversed that holding; all four judges agreed that the contract must be disclosed, and that is the law of the case as it stands now. The Board hasn't disclosed it because it chose to continue to fight this matter to the Illinois Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments on March 17.
Why make statements that are easily disproven (not the first time this has happened in a public forum of the board)? The root of the problem here is a psychological factor embodied in the statement of one incumbent, who said, "being on a school board is the highest form of volunteerism." This thinking is the result of what is known in psychology as the "feedback effect." As people surround themselves only with those who agree with them - as is the case on the current board - they become more insulated and more and more extreme in their views. I believe that some board members honestly feel that everything they do is on the side of truth, justice, and the American way, and that anyone who questions anything that they do must have bad motives, hate children, and want to destroy our schools. Thus, they are unable to view disagreements on policy matters objectively, but continue to move forward along the path of status quo, in rigid lockstep (voting in unison almost 100% of the time). Anyone who questions these choices is vilified as attacking "the children" (as though parents and taxpayers don't care what's best for their kids). This psychology stands in the way of moving the district forward.
What about me? I have a point of view as well; I disclose it, and I try to combat my own feedback effect by joining District committees, reading a variety of information sources, researching education issues at the local, state and national level, participating in debates, talking with community members, and trying to maintain a respectful and issue-oriented dialogue with District staff (and even board members).
February 14, 2009 - Wheaton-Warrenville South HS
The Board held its "conversation" meeting. As was the case at Wheaton North, the perspectives of the high school students who attended were the most valuable. They enthusiastically supported the idea of having student evaluation forms for teachers, stating that while there are many excellent teachers (who should be appreciated), there are also some who seem to have lost their passion and perhaps could benefit from constructive criticism. One student asked about the origin of "tenure."
The students who attend these meetings tend to be self-starters; when asked what motivated them to become active and involved learners, they all answered that parental support and involvement was the most important factor.
February 11, 2009 - Washington Elementary School (mothballed for 10 years)
The Board met at Washington Elementary, which was closed and "mothballed" for 10 years until the District again needed the space for children. The Board's appointed Finance Committee presented its report; I also presented a concurring report explaining why the deficits are primarily caused by Board decisions, and how we can solve them without major cuts or tax increases. See both reports on the Download Files page.
Board members viewed a student demonstration showing that the school is "Moving Toward 21st Century Learning." As we have been in the 21st century for 9 years, that is a positive. Based on the demonstration, 21st century learning is supported by "smart boards" which are giant touch screen whiteboards that can run educational computer programs. The sales representative for the company marketing these boards also happened to be present.
This "gee whiz" technology undoubtedly provides some educational benefit. However, it is also expensive, and we need to avoid the trap of trying to provide constant entertainment in the guise of "learning." If children expect constant entertainment, animation, and funny noises as a reward for doing their schoolwork, all we will get is shortened attention spans and kids who tune out those "boring" textbooks. How many children (and increasing, adults) have you seen with zombielike focus on electronic devices, to the exclusion of interaction with their peers and families, and proper physical activity? Technology has its place in the classroom, but within reasonable limits.
January 28, 2009 - Monroe Middle School
The Board held a special workshop meeting on "diversity" with representatives from the Illinois Association of School Boards, in lieu of a regular meeting. Building principals and administrators attended. I took part in a portion of the workshop and was pleasantly surprised; it did not feature political indoctrination, but presented concepts in a manner that included basic human relations issues from which we could all benefit. Messages included that "diverse teams are more creative at problem solving" and that we should respect different viewpoints. I will be very interested to see if the School Board members (who attended) will take this to heart - the current Board functions in lock step, and could, in my opinion, use some diverse viewpoints and consideration of people who don't agree 100% with it. Voters will have an opportunity to address this problem at the April 7 elections.
January 14, 2009 - Lincoln Elementary
Bower Elementary School in Warrenville (which was built on a flood plain) nearly flooded a second time due to rapid snow melting. Crews were at work all weekend sandbagging the doors and pumping water back into the DuPage River to prevent another flood. It has been claimed that moving Hubble will enable Wheaton to solve all the flooding problems in downtown Wheaton. There does not appear to be a plan to solve the flood risk at Bower, although the Board President reported that the City of Warrenville has commissioned a river study.
January 10, 2009 - Wheaton North High School
On January 10, the Board held its Saturday morning meeting at Wheaton North High School to encourage student participation. Five students attended, and had interesting comments. The drop-off in student performance on achievement tests at the high school level has been a matter of concern. I learned that the district provides "vouchers" for students who perform well on the tests, to exempt them from a final exam of their choice. I think this incentive structure is a great idea and should be expanded to other areas, such as daily attendance, which could help the district qualify for additional state funding. The students also mentioned that some students are distracted during test week because it is also prom week. Can't the district schedule prom on a week that does not include these "high stakes" tests? The students also mentioned that larger class sizes may or may not be a problem, depending on the class. Finally, they mentioned that while they had a computer for every student in a science class, they were hardly used. I hope that the Board will take note of these valuable suggestions when making spending decisions.
December 17, 2008 - Edison Middle School
The Board approved a one-year extension to the current teacher contract. Although this was misleadingly billed as a 1.6% increase, actually most teachers will get a 4.34% raise next year - not bad in today's economy - and teachers within four years of retiring will still get a guaranteed 6% raise. My remarks follow.
When the District adopted the current teacher contract in May 2006, its press release said base salary increases in 2007 and 2008 would be 3.2%.[i] Yet actual salary costs increased 6.7% and 7.1%[ii]. This was not a math error, or sudden doubling of the number of teachers. The Board deliberately cited figures that are technically correct, but incomplete and grossly misleading. The supposed 3.2% increases were actually a guaranteed 6% annual raise for most teachers.[iii]
Tonight’s materials state that “the cost of this one-year WWEA contract extension is 1.6% increase on the base.” So, does this mean that payroll is only going to increase 1.6% next year? Of course not. In fact, not one single teacher will get only 1.6%. The minimum raise allowed by the contract is 3%, most teachers will see a 4.34% raise, and any teacher within 4 years of retirement is guaranteed a 6% raise.[iv]
Board members claim we must pay to get the best teachers, but asked to justify lockstep compensation with no performance incentives, they’ll say money doesn’t motivate. They also say we must match neighboring districts. This is called “pattern bargaining,” similar to what the UAW used; when Ford gave a raise, GM and Chrysler matched it. “Keeping up with the Joneses” has nearly bankrupted them all.
District 200 doesn’t post the full contract on its web site. If the Board is proud of it, why not? Taxpayers should also know that the teachers’ union has a powerful political fund that spends thousands of dollars and conscripts teachers as foot soldiers promoting the board’s referenda and the reelection of every member sitting here tonight.[v] Isn’t this a conflict of interest? Before voting, will each Board member disclose whether he or she intends to seek the support of the union for future campaigns?
[i] District 200 Breaking News, “Board and Teachers Approve New Three-Year Contract,” May 2006. All materials can be found at the District web site, www.cusd200.org, unless otherwise stated.
[ii] 2007-2008 Budget Highlights presentation, August 8, 2007, page 4, “Salaries and Benefits Increase 6.7%; Teacher Health Insurance increase 0.0003%”; 2008-9 Annual Budget, Education Fund salary figures.
[iv] Contract, Appendices A-1 through A-3, Notes, pages 42-44 (guaranteed 3% minimum raise); Contract, Article XII(c) (guaranteed 6% raise).
[v] Visit www.elections.il.gov to view disclosure reports for Wheaton Warrenville Political Action Committee. Teachers who do not reside in District 200 were “encouraged” to sign up for a shift to pass campaign literature; personal interviews by Mark O. Stern, Wheaton, February 2008.
November 12, 2008 - Whittier Elementary
TAX TO THE MAX! That remains the Board's plan after the public hearing on the 2008 tax levy. Your correspondent was the only speaker at the hearing; I pointed out that, despite the fact that this is the largest property tax increase in District 200 history, it still won't balance the budget, nor can the budget ever be balanced without reining in salaries. My statement appears below.
Tonight the Board is considering a levy that would yield the largest property tax increase in District 200 history in actual dollars, and the largest percentage increase in at least 15 years. But even this tax increase won’t balance the budget; in fact, deficits will keep growing. Many municipalities, like Wheaton, also have deficits, but they rely on sales tax and other revenues that have actually decreased. Most District 200 funding comes from property tax revenues that grow every year, yet in good times and in bad, District 200 has run deficits since 2003.
The Board is trying cost saving measures like energy efficiency, and I applaud that. But the budget can never be balanced without addressing the elephant in the room, salaries. The Board could balance the budget, or come very close, without laying off staff, raising fees, incurring new debt, or cutting programs, if it just froze salaries for one year, or even limited raises to the rate of inflation for three years.
When the stock market tumbled, most District 200 taxpayers saw our retirement savings shrink by 1/3 or more, and wondered how much longer we’d have to work before retiring. Even if our jobs are safe, many of us may not see a raise or bonus this year, and we’ll still have to find a way to pay higher property taxes, utility bills, food prices, and everything else necessary to raise a family.
Meanwhile, District 200’s current contract gives teachers 6% annual raises regardless of performance, generous benefits, and the ability to retire at age 55 with a pension that, unlike a 401(k), is taxpayer-guaranteed regardless of how the market does. In a recession, our community is doing its part by paying property taxes raised to the maximum legal limit every year. This Board must commit to share that sacrifice through serious bargaining for the next contract.
October 22, 2008 - Jefferson Preschool
The Board voted to post the 2008 tax levy; there will be a public hearing at the November 12 meeting at Whittier Elementary. Although the levy calls for a 10.84% increase in total property taxes, the actual increase will probably be about half that, or roughly 5.3%. As always, despite what some may tell you, tax rates are irrelevant to the District’s taxing process; what is adjusted is the total amount of tax collected (called the “extension”). This means that even if home values were to decline, the District can still collect about 5.3% more tax next year, so tax bills will still go up even if property values stay constant or decline. Stagnant or falling home values have no effect on the amount of taxes the District can collect. Don’t expect a lower tax bill.
The Board also voted to post a policy change more than doubling the value of contracts it can award on a “no-bid” basis. In addition to the existing statutory loopholes (there are many), the change would mean that no contract under $25,000, and no construction contract under $50,000, would have to be competitively bid. Although state law allows this, that does not mean it’s a good idea. In a time of tight budgets, this is not the time for such a change, and it is to be hoped that the Board will revise this policy before it is made final.
Most of the meeting was devoted to discussion of test results. The Board has the 2008 school report cards (not yet publicly released by the state, which is one reason I have delayed writing this). Three schools – Johnson Elementary in Warrenville, Wheaton-Warrenville South High School, and Wheaton North High School – failed to achieve adequate yearly progress (“AYP”) under the federal “NCLB” Act. I do not fault the Board, or the District, for this; it is another reason why the federal government has no proper role in local education. In each case, the “failure” was due to testing of so-called subgroups. NCLB requires that students be subdivided by race, economic status, and certain other factors. If a group of 45 or more students in one of these categories does not meet a certain arbitrary test standard, the entire school (and in this case, the entire District) “fails to meet AYP.” The subgroups involved include “LEP” (i.e., non-English speakers), “SES” (i.e., low income), and "IEP" (i.e., special education). The LEP and SES groups tend to have the highest mobility – meaning that a student who tests here this year may have been in school somewhere else – or even in another country – last year. It is not reasonable to judge the District’s educational program without controlling for these factors.
However, it is reasonable and proper to use overall test scores – looking at students as a whole, not racial groups – to judge how the District is doing. Without the use of definitive standards, we cannot measure how we are doing. Year to year trends, and the fact that the percentages of students meeting or exceeding state standards drops the longer the students are in school should be a cause for concern.
The data also appear to show that the greatest benefits for non-English speaking students in ESL (English as a second language) curricula come between the second and third year in the program. Thereafter, gains are minimal and there is even some regression. This should show that ESL classes must be a temporary transition, not a long term plan to create a “separate but equal” curriculum in Spanish or other languages. Try driving your kids to school in Saudi Arabia (not possible there for half the population) and demanding that the public school teach them in English. The most humane solution is intensive English language first, so students can function in our language. Teaching academic subjects in a foreign language reinforces the foreign language and reduces the time that can be spent teaching English. This helps no one.
October 8, 2008 - Wheaton North High School
When it was opened in August 2006, then-superintendent Dr. Gary Catalani proclaimed that Wheaton North’s new $36 million addition made it a “state of the art” school. Board members frequently claim that the work was “on time” and “under budget.” However, it’s easy to be on time and under budget if you are not concerned about completing all of the work. More than two years later, parts of the unrenovated school are anything but “state of the art.”
On the day of the grand opening in August 2006, walking just a few steps past the brand new “commons” area and turning right, into the first boys bathroom, I found broken and missing partitions; a missing stall door; another stall door permanently fused, creating a “commons” area with two toilets, no operable stall door, and no partition; cracked and missing floor tile; stained and damaged ceiling tiles; and inoperable hot water faucets on both sinks. Several other boys’ bathrooms had similar moderate to major damage, including cracked fixtures, exposed pipes, stall damage, floor damage, and ceiling/lighting damage. More than two years later, not only are conditions in the first bathroom identical, but the bathroom itself no longer even has a door, leaving it open to the hallway outside.
Supposedly other bathrooms in the school have been updated, and I was told that this one no longer has a door due to graffiti problems (so much for “character counts”). However, it should not take two years to do basic repair work, and the Board should not be spending alleged “extra” money on so-called “wish list” items, such as $70,000 for a digital sign, when it has failed to make basic repairs elsewhere. Another example: the same lockers that are at Hubble, that allegedly needed to be replaced for $1 million – are still in use at Wheaton North! If the same standard applied to condemn facilities at Hubble were applied to other district buildings, many would fail. The Board still has no long term facilities plan to ensure routine maintenance instead of waiting for a crisis.
In other news, the District conducted soil borings, thorium testing, and air quality testing – at Bower School, after recent flooding. It’s good to hear that the Board did this voluntarily, without public pressure as was needed to ensure proper due diligence at the new Hubble site.
September 24, 2008 - Wiesbrook Elementary
Apparently not having learned the lessons of the recent mortgage crisis, District 200 is now using the proceeds of long term bonds to pay its day-to-day operating deficit. Homeowners will pay higher property taxes to pay off these bonds through 2012, but $7 million of the bond proceeds will be spent this fiscal year. The Board voted 6-0 (with Board President Andrew Johnson absent) to approve a $6.3 million deficit budget for the 2008-2009 school year. The deficit is being covered by the District’s Working Cash Fund. Although the Board calls this a transfer from its “savings account,” it’s actually comparable to taking out a 10 year loan to pay this month’s grocery bills. That’s because the money in the Working Cash Fund is not “savings” at all, but the proceeds of several bond issues (all of which were issued WITHOUT a referendum, thanks to a loophole in state law). According to RW Baird (10/1/2007), District 200 issued working cash bonds totaling over $25 million in 2002 and 2004, which are being repaid through 2012. This is the source of money covering this year's deficit.
The District’s Working Cash Fund is supposed to be used as a short term reserve. The District’s biggest “pay days” are June and September, when it receives our property tax payments. Because the District pays bills 12 months a year, the working cash fund allows it to cover its expenses throughout the year, and then (in theory) repay the fund when property taxes are paid. Ideally, the working cash fund would keep a relatively constant permanent balance of 20-25% of the total budget, as money flows out, then back in, through short term loans and repayments.
In practice, however, the District transfers money permanently from the working cash fund to cover operating deficits it incurs. Then, as the working cash fund balance declines, it issues NON-REFERENDUM BONDS to put money back in, and the process starts over again. This is a BACK-DOOR TAX INCREASE, allowing long term bond proceeds to be converted into short term deficit spending – not a sound financial practice, and one possible reason why the Illinois State Board of Education (www.isbe.state.il.us/sfms/P/profile.htm) rates District 200 in the bottom 10% of Districts statewide for financial health (“early warning” rating), and #40 out of 42 districts in DuPage County this year.
Board Member John Bomher quoted a source indicating that “unsustainable trends will not be sustained.” It’s time for the Board to stop spending more than it takes in, by limiting the growth of expenditures to the growth in revenue – which has consistently outpaced inflation.
September 19, 2008
Bower Elementary School in Warrenville was closed for one week due to the aftermath of flooding. As we pointed out during the Hubble referendum campaign, the entire Bower building sits in a flood plain (as does most of the School Service Center), while no part of the Hubble building is in a flood plain (just the athletic field). Yet the Board claimed that flooding was a reason to move Hubble, while remaining silent on the serious risk at Bower that has now resulted in a week of school lost for hundreds of students.
September 13, 2008 - School Service Center/Coffee with the Board
The first "coffee with the board" conversation meeting went swimmingly - almost literally. Due to heavy rains, scheduled speaker State Sen. Carole Pankau was unable to reach the School Service Center (which is located in a flood plain). However, I had an interesting discussion with four board members, Superintendent Drury, and Director of Communications Rammer. I would encourage anyone in the community to attend these meetings (the next one is scheduled for October 11). Coffee is provided, as advertised.
September 10, 2008 - Sandburg Elementary School
Dr. Drury reported that the first meeting of the District's new finance committee was held Monday night. Unlike prior finance committees, it is not open to community member participation. There's nothing wrong with the District holding internal meetings to address its financial planning; however, please remember in the future, when recommendations are presented, that this committee is representative of the District only, not of the "community." Dr. Rammer stated that some initial report may be expected in December. Vice President Swanson also reminded everyone that the first "Coffee with the Board" meeting will be this Saturday (September 13) from 9 to 11 a.m. at the School Service Center. Our own State Senator Carole Pankau will be there at 9 for a legislative update.
The only significant action taken was to authorize the District's lawyers to intervene in Property Tax Appeal Board cases, to fight taxpayers who are trying to get their assessments lowered. As a practical matter, the District is only likely to do this for large commercial properties, but the District has not said what properties are involved or what it thinks the assessments should be, and it remains distasteful that the government can (under the law) use tax money to fight taxpayers. My comments appear below.
Annually about 75% of Americans overpay taxes and get an IRS refund. The government already collected the money, but taxpayers are still entitled to get back. But what if, when you filed your return, Department of Defense lawyers intervened with the IRS contesting your right to a refund? They’d say they need the money for the war; if you get it back someone else will have to pay.
This sounds bizarre. But tonight this Board wants to hire lawyers to intervene before the Property Tax Appeal Board, to fight against local taxpayers who are trying to get their property assessed fairly. The Appeal Board is supposed to be a “poor man’s court” where a taxpayer can get a fair hearing without hiring an attorney or paying filing fees. The tax assessor is already represented, so this action means that average taxpayers fighting for their rights must also face the District’s high priced lawyers who, adding insult to injury, are paid with the taxpayers’ own money.
I deplore this course of action, but must point out that taxing bodies who do intervene in tax matters often split the cost, so each entity pays its fair share. This board talks about intergovernmental cooperation, but there’s none in this resolution.
State law gives this Board the right, but that doesn’t make it right. This Board may claim that this applies only to some “fat cats,” but the resolution doesn’t specify and can apply to anyone. Moreover, this Board’s actual record of protecting our property tax base is poor. When the City of Wheaton wanted to give away $45 million in property tax revenues to subsidize building luxury condos, Dr. Catalani actually sent a letter on behalf of the District supporting the plan! So much for fighting for tax revenue for our schools.
September 8, 2008 - Wheaton City Council
The Wheaton City Council held public interviews with three consultant finalists to assist the City in soliciting developers for the Hubble Middle School/Wheaton Central site. The City is to be commended for having an open process, at least as to the consultant selection. However, I remain concerned about the City’s desire to “select” a developer and impose its ideas rather than letting the market take its course. When a single private business enterprise is anointed by a government body, taxpayers don’t always get the best deal. The City’s track record with consultants is mixed; the current retail consultant has been on the job almost two years; after 1 year it was admitted that the consultant had generated not one new business for downtown, despite collecting tens of thousands in fees.
To coin a phrase, is the commercial climate in Wheaton better off now than say four years ago? We’ve lost our downtown grocery store, three pharmacies, and a long time clothing store. Where once there were five new car dealerships lining Roosevelt Road and generating sales tax, we are now down to one. Formerly tax-generating property along Main Street has been bulldozed. Meanwhile the City spends hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing the vendetta of unelected bureaucrats against a single downtown landowner, and gives millions of TIF subsidies to favored developers – mostly out of the pockets of our school and park districts. Do we need to commercialize the last major piece of open space in central Wheaton given the vacancies downtown, at Jewel, Wescott Crossing, along Roosevelt, et cetera?
I also encourage the School Board not to be bullied by the City. Five school board members plus the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent attended the meeting. But they were in the audience, not running the show. Don’t forget that the School District still owns this property, not the City, and the School District’s job is to provide resources for education, not ribbon cutting ceremonies for developers and politicians. The City has shown in the past that it is ready to take actions that may have little or no benefit for the schools, and may cost them millions – the Courthouse TIF comes to mind.
One of the consultants said its own work wouldn’t even be done until 2010 – let alone years more to sell and develop the property. Thus, the property will have to sit fallow for a while regardless of its ultimate use. The District has closed and reopened schools in the past; let’s not be in a hurry to make a fire sale of this property.
August 27, 2008 - School Service Center
Discussion centered on the District’s ongoing budget deficit ($6.3 million this year) and the formation of a new “finance committee” to address it. I, along with a number of other community members, served on the most recent finance committee, which was abruptly terminated in February 2007 before it could complete its work, without much in the way of explanation or thanks. The new committee, in contrast, will apparently involve no community input, at least at the outset. The District is also touting a move to all-day kindergarten as a “revenue generator” which allegedly would result in additional state aid that would more than cover the added costs. The next time the District even breaks even with state aid for anything will be the first time, so I have serious doubts about this scheme, but we’ll see what projections the District brings forward.
Contrary to some board members’ past campaign claims that the District has been balancing its budgets, Dr. Drury admitted (this is not news) that the District has spent more than it has taken in every year since at least 2003. These deficits have been financed largely by the board’s issuance – without voter approval, thanks to a loophole in state law – of $16 million in additional bond debt for “working cash,” which is a property tax increase. However, because the board continues to use long-term “savings” funds to pay for current spending, reserves are being depleted far below recommended levels and the District will run out of money by 2012 if nothing is done. But this problem is not hard to solve, WITHOUT new taxes. All we have to do is increase teachers’ salary costs roughly 25% faster than the rate of inflation, instead of 100%.
The Board often blames things like the increased price of gas for school buses, yet, as I have noted, the increase in the budget line item for gas prices over the last several years has been less than the increase in the line item for administrator salaries. The Board is to be commended for implementing energy saving strategies, but energy costs, while not immaterial, are not the root cause of the problem. By the same token, I frequently criticize the Board for what I consider wasteful spending (like spending $50,000 to provide calculators for children as young as kindergarten, who should be developing basic skills before turning to electronics), but even these items, while they don’t help, are not the fundamental cause of the budget deficits either. Nor is lack of revenue.
The October 10, 2007 tax levy presentation, available on the District web site, is informative. District property tax revenues have grown 39.03% over the last decade. Yet inflation – measured by the Consumer Price Index – was only 24.25% over the same period. In other words, the District’s tax revenue grew 61% faster than the rate of inflation. Why, then, the deficits?
Deficits are inevitable because the Board entered into a teacher contract that guarantees most teachers a 6% raise every year (see salary schedules to the teacher contract on the Download Files page) – almost double the rate of inflation. Yet the Board knows that its tax revenues have NEVER grown more than 5.1% in any year since 1995, and in fact average only about a 4% increase (which still meant tax revenues growth was 61% higher than the rate of inflation). No matter how high taxes are raised, if the Board agrees to pay salaries – the majority of District spending – that always increase much faster than revenues, there will never be a balanced budget. If the Board would just limit the annual salary cost increases to say, 25-30% over the rate of inflation, it could easily balance its budget without any of the threatened “draconian cuts,” and teachers would still achieve a real salary increase every year. Will this simple plan be adopted? Don’t hold your breath, for reasons to be discussed in future commentaries.
August 13, 2008 - School Service Center
Last night the Board voted to post for public review its 2008-2009 budget, which projects a deficit of over $6.3 million on top of a prior year deficit of over $2 million. Recall that during the last school board campaign the incumbents touted their "balanced budgets." (All figures discussed exclude the bond and interest fund for building projects.)
This is a very complex subject, which District staff ably presents in detailed and informative materials that will be available on the District web site. However, I disagree with their rationale for why the deficit exists. They claim it is because of a "decrease in revenue." There is no decrease in revenue: overall revenue (even excluding a $7 million transfer from bond money to operating spending) grew about 2.6%. It is true that state and federal payments to the District decreased since last year - by about $139,000, or less than 0.5% - but that is due to year to year fluctuations. Even with that minor decrease, state and federal payments are up more than 18% over the last 5 years, despite slightly declining enrollment. And of course, property tax revenues are up every year.
But the true culprit is, of course, spending. A favorite scapegoat is "gas prices." Like all of us, the District cannot control fuel prices, and pays its bus contractor a fuel escalator clause, which has increased some $428,278 over the last five years. However, the five year increase in fuel costs for the entire District is actually less than the increase in the line item for administrator salaries - something the District does control - which increased $446,542 over the same period, an amazing 84.5% growth (the increase over the previous four years was actually over 117%, but it is down this year with the replacement of Dr. Catalani with Dr. Drury). Perhaps this is why the District has been litigating for over 2 years to keep administrator contracts secret from the public. The District claims it knew five years ago that it would face a deficit this year. Yet the line items for teacher salaries (a much larger component of the budget than either transportation or administrator salaries) increased 8.5%, after a 7.15% increase last year. No possible funding mechanism can support these levels of expenditure, which reflect both the growth in number of staff and the growth of individual salaries.
What about discretionary spending? Last night the board approved the following items: $10,589.92 for a DuPage school lobbying network (given the claim that state aid is down, are we getting anything for our money?); $5,100 for the National Association of School Boards (which is a lobbying organization on behalf of its members - that's school BOARDS, not school DISTRICTS), and $30,000 for a "furniture consultant" to provide "a comprehensive needs assessment" for furnishing the new middle school (in my day, we used desks and chairs in classrooms, but for $30,000 presumably this consultant will ensure that the color palette is soothing and the feng shui of the classroom is in harmony with everyone's chi).
July 9, 2008 - School Service Center
The public portion of this meeting was the briefest of the year, to enable the board to get to its "real" business - in closed session, of course. A loophole in the Illinois Open Meetings Act allows the board to meet in closed session for "self evaluation, practices and procedures or professional ethics, when meeting with a representative of a statewide association of which the public body is a member". This is the same exemption the board uses annually to set its priorities; see, for example, the August 30, 2006 meeting notice ("The purpose of the meeting [was] to conduct a Board Self Evaluation with a representative of the IASB and to set the high priority goals of the district, which will become the Superintendent’s performance goals."
President Woodrow Wilson advocated "open covenants, openly arrived at." But our board does the opposite. Why should the board's priorities be determined in secret? When the City of Wheaton established its strategic goals, it did so openly. See https://dm1.wheaton.il.us/SireSearch/cache/7261475b-3ce1-44ec-b2d2-17afd7fdc6b5.pdf. It's important for citizens to know how their government decides what direction to take. But our board takes it a step further to avoid disclosure - once the board makes its goals "performance goals" for the superintendent, it then claims they are "personnel matters" exempt from the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act. So the public doesn't get to see how the goals are determined, or whether they have been met!
This is the antithesis of a culture of learning. Students are told what they are expected to learn, taught the material, graded, and given report cards. Our board should follow the same process, with openness and accountability, not secrecy.
June 11, 2008 - School Service Center
The Board voted to seek yet another extension for completing life safety improvements at Jefferson Preschool. Its application states that the work won't be completed until November 2009. This has been going on for years, even though Legat Architects presented three options to address these problems in March 2007. Legat itself has said that every year of delay pushes up construction costs, yet the Board refuses to act. But they can't blame the delay on Educate 200 or anyone other than themselves. If life safety improvements are needed for our youngest students, continued delay is unconscionable, besides wasting tax dollars.
The Board also scheduled its "community comment" meetings to be held monthly on the second Saturday of each month from 9 to 11 am at the School Service Center, beginning September 13.
The Board also voted, again, to grant "full release" to the teachers' union president, so he can work full time on union business - no teaching - at taxpayer expense. He'll receive full salary, benefits and seniority - the union will reimburse the district only for a portion of the salary, and nothing for the cost of benefits.
May 28, 2008 - Lowell Elementary School
The Board voted to spend $100,000 for an engineering study related to traffic lane changes at the new Hubble site; the required road work will cost the District an additional $1 million. During the first public comment, I asked why the City of Warrenville isn't paying for this. There have been many promises of financial support from Warrenville - remember the "free land" - but no money to date. Warrenville is requiring much of this road work, and it should contribute. District staff indicated that a recapture agreement, which would require future developers of adjacent property to reimburse a share of these costs, is being "discussed" with Warrenville, but apparently is not in place.
The board also recognized three teachers honored by the New 200 Foundation with its Distinguished Teacher Award. Mrs. Judy Roberts, of Pleasant Hill Elementary, showed why she is successful because of her attitude toward parents; she stated that she recognizes that she is "only the secondary teacher; parents are the primary teacher." Congratulations to her, Todd Harper of Edison, and Rob Harvey of Wheaton-Warrenville South.
At the second public comment period, a resident criticized the current middle school health curriculum for teaching abstinence only. What else should we be teaching eighth graders? We don't tell children, "Don't do drugs, but if you make that choice, use a sanitary needle and don't overdose," we say "JUST SAY NO." We need one consistent clear message; middle school children should be taught to respect themselves, not to be sex objects. Moreover, state law is very clear on the contents of health curricula in this area. The Board has a good curriculum in place, and it should stay as is. Despite what is stated in the May 29 Daily Herald story, neither the first speaker (Mrs. Henk) nor I "injected partisan politics" into the discussion; neither of us mentioned it at all.
May 14, 2008 - Johnson Elementary School
I am currently doing some web site maintenance, and am just back from vacation, so some of the prior board updates will be unavailable for a while. Here is the update on last meeting.
The board approved $185,000 to repave the parking lots at Bower Elementary (formerly a middle school) in Warrenville. Given that the entire property at Bower is in a flood plain, I asked during public comment whether the board had considered using permeable pavers, as the City of Warrenville is doing on Warrenville Road. If the new Hubble middle school is going to be "green," why isn't this being addressed in all building projects? Staff indicated that permeable pavers would add substantially to the cost. While we certainly need to be cost effective, the board is spending over half a million dollars to get "LEED" certification for the new Hubble - that's not the cost of the green features, but just for a piece of paper saying the building is "green." That's a lot of money for a piece of paper - even a recycled piece of paper. I'd rather see money go to actual building features, rather than feel-good certification.
Assistant Superintendent Dr. Belha reported that the District's teachers have an average age of 42.9 years, average experience of 13 years, are 78% female, and 20% have B.A., 78.6% M.A., and 1.2% doctorate. There are about 1,063 full time and 100 part time teachers. Last year the District received 5,000 job applications. So we must be paying well enough to be in high demand. There were 59 applications for the principal's job at Monroe.
This was the first meeting with the new public comment policy in place; I spoke twice, once at the beginning on an agenda item and once at the end (proving that like all government policies, this one may have unintended consequences opposite to what was intended). The other speaker was a middle school student who had to wait almost 2 hours before he could ask a brief question to the board.
The Board also voted to pay the West Chicago school district about $185,000 relating to the annexation of Fox Hollow subdivision from that district into District 200. It's not entirely clear why there was $185,000 in extra money in the bond and interest fund to pay for this; I am still investigating.
As is done at the last meeting of every school year, the board honored 15 and 25 year district employees with a reception prior to the meeting.
|
