We often hear that District 200 faces "unfunded mandates."  I want to define an unfunded mandate:  An unfunded mandate is something new that you’re not already doing, and wouldn’t do unless it was required.  For example, Illinois law mandates that every driver carry car insurance.  However, I would carry car insurance whether or not I had to, and in fact I carry more than what is required by law.  So that is not an unfunded mandate to me.

If the Board believes that it has unfunded mandates, it should state specifically what things state or federal law requires the District to do that it would stop doing without the mandate.  For example, No Child Left Behind requires highly qualified teachers, and testing students to monitor their progress.  Is the Board saying we didn’t have highly qualified teachers until two years ago, and that if No Child Left Behind was repealed they would save money by bringing in unqualified teachers and no longer testing students?

Most things state and federal law requires us to do are things we are already doing as a quality district, and it is dishonest to blame spending problems on unfunded mandates.

The Board also imposes its own "unfunded mandates" on the state - meaning YOU the taxpayer - when it provides guaranteed end-of-career raises that cause pension benefits to be higher than the retiree's salary was for most of his career.  The state, not the district, must fund the huge pension fund shortfalls caused by salary "boosts."  Example:  a top administrator will retire this year, at age 57, with a pension of roughly $215,000 per year, with a guaranteed cost-of-living increase of 3% per year for life.  The initial pension is higher than his salary ever was while working, up until the last four years of employment.  Actuarially, it is impossible to sustain this from contributions made during employment; assuming life expectancy is about 30 years, he'll collect nearly $10 MILLION from the pension system.  Although the absolute dollars may be smaller, this equation is repeated for most district retirees, who can retire with full benefits as young as age 55, a perk rarely found in today's private sector.

This page last updated May 22, 2007.