Reality Check for Hubble Site

The "Hubble Steering Committee" met on Thursday, February 4 at Wheaton City Hall.  This committee is a group of elected officials and private citizens.  They share one common characteristic:  few, if any of them, have ever risked one dollar of their own money developing a parcel of real estate.  However, they are going to decide how best to develop to Wheaton Central/Hubble site.  To help them in their task the City has committed hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to hire various consultants.  These consultants, who do have experience in real estate development, have now debunked some of the fanciful ideas that were touted with respect to the possible redevelopment of the Wheaton Central/Hubble site.  Some key points that were confirmed: 

*  According to a City Council member, NONE of the redevelopment options "are going to have a significant impact" on City finances - in other words, selling the property for private development will not have a significant impact on the tax burden of Wheaton residents.

*  As previously confirmed, the site cannot be used to mitigate flooding experienced by downtown residents.

*  Putting a hotel on the property would probably require taxpayer subsidies, according to the City's consultants, and even then the only viable option would be an "extended stay hotel" not a boutique hotel.

*  Putting a movie theater on the property would harm existing downtown businesses, according to the consultant, by drawing traffic away from downtown area north of the tracks.

*  A small grocery store would be viable, but would need to be located along or near Roosevelt, and thus farther to walk to for downtown residents.

*  There will be no realignment of Main Street or giant lake as shown in materials promoted by District 200 and the New Wheaton Central Foundation prior to the referendum. 

*  The project development is unlikely even to start until 2012, with opening some time after that.

School Board Vice President Rosemary Swanson, speaking on her own behalf, stated that any redevelopment should "enhance the community long term," be "something the community can use," something we can "get energy out of" and that we "need things that bring people to do things."  She is right - whether she knows it or not she is describing the multi-purpose community center I and others have been advocating.  If you want to see energy, community use, and bringing people downtown, visit the athletic fields any weekend when youth sports are active.

Some options for the existing structure include Park District use of the gyms (already happening thanks to an intergovernmental agreement), District 200 administrative offices (which currently sit in a floodplain), Park District offices (rather than cramming into the DuPage Museum), Milton Township offices (to replace a dated structure along Main), District 200 warehouse and garage (to replace the isolated Woodland site), Jefferson preschool (allowing sale of that land), College of DuPage satellite classrooms, community space in the auditorium, and many other possibilities.  Adaptive reuse of the existing structure would be "green" and would avoid millions of dollars in storm water mitigation and the environmental impact of tearing down and rebuilding on the site.

More Personnel Turmoil at District 200??  Board convenes 11th special closed meeting, this time in a location outside District boundaries

On January 28, the District 200 School Board convened its eleventh (11th) special closed meeting in the last 4 months to deal with "Personnel Issues".  In the same time period the Board has only held 6 regular public meetings.  In January 2010 the board has held FIVE special closed meetings, after the SIX it held in October 2009 in connection with the firing - make that "mutual agreement to separate" - of Dr. Drury.  Two of the January meetings - January 26 and January 28 - were held at Allgauer's restaurant, outside of the boundaries of District 200.  There are plenty of locations that pay taxes to support our District 200 schools the Board could have chosen.  What new personnel dysfunction is the Board addressing?  Why won't the Board support our local businesses?

Finance Committee Reconvenes

District 200 has reconvened its finance committee to consider further budget cuts to total up to $8.6 million for the next fiscal year.  This follows last year's combination of a $20 million tax increase/borrowing and approximately $7 million in budget cuts.  I am serving on the finance committee and will bring you reports on its progress.  A public hearing on proposed cuts (which have not yet been released) is scheduled for Wednesday, March 3.

League of Women Voters State of the City Forum, Franklin Middle School, November 19, 2009

DRURY OUT but vindicated - to receive full severance pay

Charles Baker to serve as interim superintendent

Board releases statement and copy of signed separation agreement; copy posted on Download Files page.  Also be posted on District web site.

Tribune article:  http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/10/suburban-school-superintendent-resigns.html

Daily Herald article:  http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=329363

On October 15, 2009, at its fifth special meeting this month, the Board met for 1 hour 15 minutes and at 8:45 p.m. voted to enter into a "resignation agreement" with Dr. Drury.  Drury did not attend the meeting, but the Board's attorney did.  The deal, which is fully signed, also includes a positive letter of reference, which should dispel all rumors of misconduct by Drury.  This means that Drury's termination by the Board was without cause.  Had Drury actually quit voluntarily, he would not have received severance pay, so this is a negotiated settlement.  Drury will stay on payroll through March 9, 2010, and then will get $60,000, so basically he's getting the full year salary and benefits he's entitled to if terminated without cause.

The Board President read a prepared statement chalking this all up to "differences over future goals."  Supposedly the Board reached a consensus to fire Drury in August, prior to the Obama speech.  Bear in mind that the Board can only (legally) reach a consensus during an official meeting.  At the only meeting in July, the Board renewed Drury's contract.  The formal renewal actually took place at the August 12 meeting, according to the Supplemental Personnel Report.  There was only 1 more meeting in August.  This means that by the very next meeting (August 26) after renewing his contract, they'd already decided to dump him.  There is no logical explanation for this 180 degree reversal of course by the Board, and given what is now known it's not at all clear why it took five meetings to reach this agreement.  The Board ended up doing what they could have done in August - paying Dr. Drury his severance if they wanted to fire him without cause.

The interim superintendent will be Dr. Charles Baker, former Wheaton-Warrenville South principal and now part time employee at the District office.  The Board says there will be no increase in his salary.  He is retired and can't collect a full time salary and his pension at the same time.  If Baker can handle the superintendent duties part time, are we overstaffed in administration? 

No action was taken at the fourth special meeting of the Board held on 10/14 prior to the regular board meeting.  The Board instead announced its fifth special meeting of the month, to be held on 10/15, and did not hold a closed session following the regular business meeting.  I did not attend the Board meeting.

No action was taken at the third special meeting of the Board this month held Tuesday, October 13 at 7:30 p.m. at the School Service Center.  After about 2 hours the board reconvened and recessed the closed session meeting until October 14 at 7 p.m. at Hubble-Warrenville, immediately prior to the regular board meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m.  Neither Dr. Drury nor attorneys on either side attended the 10/13 meeting; it is always possible they participated by conference call into the closed session.  For those who may have noticed a marked Wheaton squad car in the SSC parking lot during the meeting, it had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS MEETING; the officer was investigating graffiti at Edison.

We have obtained a copy of a letter circulated among substantially all District 200 teachers, critical of the District's initial response to the Obama speech.  It is posted on the Download Files page under "Obama Speech Letter".  This is not a private communication; it was circulated to hundreds of people using official District 200 e-mail addresses, and was sent from an official District 200 e-mail address during school hours on Friday, September 4 at about 11 a.m., so it is a public record.  The letter was written prior to the District's initial public announcement (which was to tape the speech and allow teachers to play it or not as they saw fit).  Public records indicate that the author of the letter is a member of DuPage United.  DuPage United is a left wing pressure group that, among other things, actively promoted the election last year of new, union-supported members to "take over" the College of DuPage Board of Trustees (see http://www.dupageunited.org/framingissue.html).  Could District 200 be next?  Were the numerous letters to the editor attacking District 200's response to the speech spontaneous, or part of a coordinated public relations campaign?  Did this letter play a role in Drury's removal???

Drury's name appears nowhere in the materials for the October 14 Board Meeting that were released on October 8. 

After more than 3 hours of a closed session meeting on October 7, no action was taken, the Board had no comment, and the Board announced that another special meeting is expected, but not yet scheduled.  Dr. Drury and his attorney attended the meeting, as did the Board's two attorneys.  The attorneys shuttled back and forth between Drury, who waited in an office, and the Board's closed session.  An educated guess suggests Dr. Drury is out, and the parties are now negotiating the terms of his severance.  This strongly suggests he is being terminated without cause, so he is legally entitled to be paid his severance.  If I were asked, I'd tell him to hold out for everything owed to him.  He did his job, and is fully justified in demanding that the Board honor the contract if it chooses to force him out.  But, if there is wrongdoing, I likewise expect the Board not to pay him.  It is evident he will be leaving, the only question being when.  I had expected tonight's meeting to be quick, but clearly I was wrong, as negotiations apparently are continuing.

The following is a detailed account of how we got to the point where, to all appearances, Dr. Richard Drury is no longer the District 200 superintendent, subject only to final board action (the Board must have a superintendent in place, so even though he is no longer acting, he cannot officially be removed until they have a successor).  We cannot say with 100% certainty that Drury is out, but nothing that has happened over the past three weeks suggests he will continue to serve.  Given that these matters have now been the subject of board deliberation, they can no longer be considered rumors.

The District 200 School Board met Monday, October 5 at 7 p.m. at the School Service Center but took no action.  Dr. Drury was not in attendance.  Instead, the Board scheduled another special meeting for Wednesday, October 7 at 7 p.m. at the School Service Center.  It is now apparent that Dr. Richard Drury is no longer serving as District 200 School Superintendent, and that formal action will be taken on October 7 to terminate his employment.  Initially, it appeared that the Board wanted to act on October 5.  However, notice of the meeting was posted on the District web site only this morning, although at least two media outlets confirmed they received fax notice Saturday afternoon.  Although the Board President stated that all requirements of the Open Meetings Act had been met, in an abundance of caution it would seem that the Board is deferring action until Wednesday to avoid any possibility that the meeting might be held invalid due to lack of proper notice.

It is understandable that the Board cannot disclose certain issues regarding personnel matters.  However, the Board’s culture of secrecy is such that one relatively senior District employee admitted visiting this web site to try to find out what is going on!  When the District’s own personnel are in the dark, there is a crisis of leadership that flows from the Board down.  The following information summarizes the timeline of what is known to date based on public information and reliable sources.

February 14, 2007 – There is a lot of love at the Board’s Valentine’s Day meeting when Dr. Richard Drury, the superintendent at the Muskego-Norway school district (suburban Milwaukee), is introduced with much fanfare as the successor to Dr. Gary Catalani.  It is announced he has signed a three year contract.  Drury was found by the headhunting firm of Hazard, Young & Attea (HYA), which is an entity comprised of current and former school administrators.  HYA placed Catalani in District 200, placed Catalani at his new job in Scottsdale, Arizona, and placed Dr. Drury’s successor in Wisconsin.

July 1, 2007 – Dr. Drury begins work as superintendent.  His base salary is $200,000 a year plus various fringe benefits.  Board President Andrew Johnson states that Drury "has the background, the commitment, and the personal characteristics that will serve our communities well and enable us to move to the next level of excellence."

July 1, 2008 – Dr. Drury signs a new three year contract, running through June 30, 2011 (a one year extension).  A copy is posted on this web site on the Download Files page.  The contract provides (section 19E, page 14) that if he is terminated without cause, he gets severance equal to full salary and benefits for 1 year.  The contract states that “cause” does not include failure to meet performance goals – that is, if he is terminated for failure to meet goals, he still gets paid the severance.

July 8, 2009 – District 200 Board renews Drury’s contract for another year, so it now expires June 30, 2012.

August 12, 2009 – Board members are upset when, at the same meeting at which it votes to approve the anti-nepotism policy suggested by Drury, I point out that Board Member Knicker’s relative is on the agenda to be employed.  Board Member Knicker ultimately abstains from voting on the matter after a closed session discussion.

September 2009 – President Obama announces, on short notice, an address to school students scheduled for Tuesday September 8.  Initial lesson plans stir controversy when it is revealed they include having students write letters on how they can help the President.  District 200 holds an administrative meeting on Friday September 4 at which it is determined that logistically, the District does not have the technological capability to stream the speech live; in addition, the speech is during lunch time and is live, so the District can’t gather all students easily and can’t review in advance.  Robocalls to parents announce that for these reasons, the District will tape the speech and allow teachers to use it in their regular lesson plans the following day as they see fit.  Hysterical reaction ensues among some parents and students claiming that this somehow constitutes censorship and disrespect of the President.  A letter is circulated among District 200 teachers criticizing the District's response.  (See Download Files page for a copy.)  Dr. Drury tapes a second robocall to parents apologizing for the District’s initial (and in my opinion quite sensible) response; the Board President presents the same information at September 9 Board meeting.  This turns out to be Drury's last public meeting in his official capacity.

September 22, 2009 - it is reported that Dr. Drury is "on vacation" after appearing at District offices on September 21.

September 23, 2009 – Dr. Drury is absent from the regular Board meeting at Franklin Middle School; Board Vice President states that he is “taking some personal time”.  Board President Johnson and Board Member Bomher do not attend the meeting either.  One person who is present is Board attorney John Relias, who rarely attends meetings.  On the agenda for closed session discussion is “action on an administrative contract at the request of the Board President.”  It is later determined through circumstantial evidence that the administrative contract is Drury’s.  It also emerges that Drury has not been in the office beginning September 21.  Rumors begin to circulate throughout the District that Drury is being removed.  District 200 provides no information, leading to a critical editorial in the Daily Herald.

October 3, 2009 – District staff fax notice of a special meeting to be held Monday October 5 to several newspapers on a Saturday afternoon, and apparently post it at the School Service Center (on an inside door not as easily visible from the street).  However, they don’t post it on the District web site where the District posts all meeting notices.  This course of action in my view violates the spirit of the Open Meetings Act, even if it technically complies, because it is calculated not to inform the vast majority of District 200 residents who (1) aren't newspapers, and (2) don't drive by the administration building on weekends, stop, and go up to the inside door to see if anything has been posted.  The meeting also conflicts with a Wheaton City Council meeting scheduled for the same time, making it less likely to receive media coverage, and there is no community access tv coverage.  It is reported that the Board wanted to take action Monday night so it can be announced at a scheduled administrator meeting Tuesday morning.

October 5, 2009 – District staff post the meeting notice on the District web site.  I submit a FOIA request to determine what media outlets received notice and when.  Reports indicate that Drury’s office has been cleaned out; I have confirmed this by visual inspection without entering the office.  The Board meets, and after two public comments goes into closed session with its attorney.  Drury is not present.  Before doing so, it announces that no action will be taken, and that another meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 7 at 7 p.m. at the School Service Center.  In my opinion, the Board has done this so there is no question of adequate public notice for its October 7 meeting.

October 6, 2009 - Local media coverage of the special meeting.  Board President Johnson is cited in the Daily Herald as maintaining that "Drury is merely on vacation" which is confirmed by Board Secretary Intihar in the same article.  An article also appears in the Wheaton Leader (http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/wheaton/news/x1699615181/Last-minute-school-board-meeting-raises-questions-gives-no-answers).  As a point of clarification to one statement in the article, I am not a District 200 parent.  Further reports from informed sources suggest that the Obama speech controversy may in fact be the driving force behind the apparent ouster and that Drury was required to take "vacation".  It is public record that a majority of the Board members are registered or self-identified Democrats.

October 7, 2009 – After three hours of closed session discussions, the Board does not act on the termination of Drury’s employment with the District.  Drury attends the meeting with his attorney, but sits in the audience; two District lawyers also attend.  The Board adjourns into closed session, and at one point Drury and his lawyer enter the meeting room.  They spend most of the meeting, however, in a room on the second floor of the SSC, while the Board's lawyers occasionally shuttle back and forth between the two rooms.  About 10:30 p.m., the Board reconvenes to announce that no action will be taken, and to expect another special meeting soon.  Board members decline comment to the several reporters present.

October 8, 2009 - District posts on its web site the agenda for the October 14 board meeting.  Normally, Dr. Drury's name and electronic signature appear on agenda items, but they are not included on this notice.  One agenda item is a "superintendent report" but it is listed as being approved by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Margo Sorrick, not Dr. Drury.  Additional media coverage of the events of October 7 appears.

October 9, 2009 - www.markostern.com posts a copy of the letter circulated among District teachers, criticizing the District's response to the Obama speech controversy.

October ?, 2009 - For legal reasons, the Board is unlikely to state why Drury left.  We may never know the actual reason.  However, we can easily determine whether or not he was terminated for cause.  If the District pays him no more money, that will indicate he was terminated for cause.  If the District pays him money, that indicates that he was terminated without cause as a political decision of the Board.  Termination without cause will cost the District at least a quarter million dollars, plus the cost of obtaining a new superintendent.  It is extremely disruptive to change leaders mid year.  Plus, the Board has twice renewed Drury’s contract, including this July.  What could have happened in less than 3 months that they now want to get rid of him?  Remember, follow the money.  If Drury gets no severance pay, then he was terminated for cause and the Board’s action was justified because we can presume misconduct.  However, if (as I believe will be the case) Drury is paid his severance, we know that there was no legal cause to terminate him and the Board has wasted our money (remember, we’re still paying Catalani’s benefits, so we will be paying three superintendents at once, including Drury and his successor).

For my part, I don’t agree with everything Dr. Drury did, nor do I expect people to agree with everything I do.  However, I found him to be a professional and respectful person, not just to me but to other community members, and he never lied to me, which is all I ask from an administrator.  I believe he attempted to bring openness and transparency to the District, as well as a balanced budget.  When he was still in Wisconsin, I sent a FOIA request for his contract, which was promptly answered, no questions asked.  If he is really being removed without cause, I regret his departure.

For the record, I also think (and stated publicly at his last meeting) that Dr. Catalani was effective at implementing the policies the Board approved (many of which I strongly disagreed with), but he did not support an open process in many respects, and the District spent a lot of money at his behest fighting unsuccessfully to keep his contract secret.  Under his administration, the seeds of the current budget deficit were also sown, by obtaining labor peace at the cost of overly generous contracts that created the deficits we now face.  However, it is the Board members who ultimately bear responsibility for these actions.

Downtown Wheaton Association Financial Statements now available on Download Files page

FLIP-FLOP?

DISTRICT GETS IT RIGHT ON OBAMA SPEECH

BOARD MEMBERS SAY:  UNSAFE FOR STUDENTS TO WALK TO NEW HUBBLE

Did District 200 lie or mislead voters about the benefits of the new Hubble middle school?  Over the next few months I will be examining some of the campaign rhetoric in light of current facts.  One frequently cited statistic was that “only four students” walked to the old Hubble – the others had to be bused.  We needed to move the school to “where the students were,” with the implication that students would then have a neighborhood school.  Care to hazard a guess how many students are now able to walk to their new, “green” Hubble?  That number would be – ZERO.  “Hazard” a guess is in fact the correct terminology.  The District currently must bus ALL students to the new Hubble because the Board itself, by unanimous vote at its August 12, 2009 meeting, declared that there are “serious safety hazards” preventing any Hubble student from walking to school.  This is due in part to the fact that there are no sidewalks connecting the school to anywhere, a fact I pointed out during the referendum campaign.  The District has not stated whether it is purchasing carbon offsets to cover this increase in students bused to its supposed “green” building. 

The District will point out that sidewalks are proposed for Galusha Road, although this project is neither on time (for the school opening) nor within the ($58 million) budget.  But if Galusha sidewalks are completed, how many of the roughly 850 students will then be able to walk to school?  50%?  25%?  10%?  In fact, District staff have advised that only 37 students – less than 5% of the student population – will be able to walk to the new Hubble if and when the serious safety hazards currently in their path are abated.  Students in the west part of the Hubble attendance area will presumably have shorter bus trips than they did before, but the District has itself stated (in its Hubble Myths vs. Fact presentation, April 2007) that it pays the same amount of money per bus route regardless of distance traveled.

CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF BOARD MEMBER KEN KNICKER DUE TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN REPEATEDLY VOTING FOR HIS CHILDREN'S EMPLOYMENT WITH DISTRICT 200

The Contract - At Last!

Now available - Dr. Catalani's new contract in Arizona.  See Arizona Contract on Download files page.  Of particular note, because District 200 is still paying his zero deductible, zero copay health insurance until 2011, he gets $10,000 cash because the Scottsdale district doesn't have to pay his insurance costs.  Why are District 200 taxpayers forced to subsidize the Scottsdale school district??  Also available is Dr. Drury's current contract with District 200.  You will note that it is much less generous than Catalani's contract with District 200.  Is Dr. Drury much less qualified, or did the Board just pay Dr. Catalani way too much?

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: