Klingenberg redux?

[Ted]

 There was an interesting discussion at the July D100 COW meeting about perception of certain types of expenses and whether it would affect people in whether they would vote for or against the tax rate increase referenda next March.

  The board was discussing attendance at a conference in downtown Chicago next November and whether it would "look bad" for the board to charge in hotel expenses for staying overnight rather than commuting to the conferences downtown. The expenses would have been $300 for two nights per board member (around $2,000 total). 

  Some board members expressed concern that it would look bad to the public for the board to charge in those expenses while at the same time asking for an increase in the district property tax rate.

It got me thinking about what happened in D201 20 years ago with the Klingenberg scandal.  In 1993, D201 put on the ballot a tax increase referendum. A few months before the election it came out that the superintendent Klingenberg had been taking trips and spending extravagently at the tax payers expense. The referendum was defeated with 93% of people voting no.

I was wondering if D100 had potentially the same situation on its hands with some of the things that have happened in the last year.

  Do you think any of the following things would make people less likely to vote for the tax rate increase:

1. Finding out the overall tax rate and overall taxes per household was lower in north Berwyn in D98 than it is in south Berwyn?

2. Finding out board members are charging in $2,000 in hotel expenses to attend a conference in downtown Chicago?

3. Finding out the superintendent and his staff had charged in thousands of dollars in meal expenses for lunch meals from local restaurants like Paisans?

4. Finding out the superintendent was flying around the country to speak at conferences rather than tending to the business of running the district?

5. Finding out the superintendent had spent thousands of dollars in tax payer mony to knock down walls and expand his office to twice its size?

6. Finding out politically connected employees were being given use of D100 vehicles for their own personal use outside of employment hours?

7. Finding out about promotions of politically connected employees, despite the fact that the district was expecting a budget deficit of millions of dollars?

8. Finding out the district had hired 40 new employees despite the fact that the district was expecting a budget deficit of millions of dollars rather than laying off people to cut spending and try to balance the budget?


To me, the two biggest things would be #1 and #8. The overall tax rate and tax per household is lower in north Berwyn than south Berwyn.  And, despite the fact that the district was expecting a budget deficit of $4 million dollars, it hired 40 new employees in new positions to push the budget deficit over $6 million dollars (on a budget with revenue of around $40 million).

  But, I think if #2 thru #7 came out in public during the referenda campaign, it would piss more people off than #1 or #8.

[buzz]

1. Finding out the overall tax rate and overall taxes per household was lower in north Berwyn in D98 than it is in south Berwyn?

This doesn't bother me at all.
Everything else does.

[buzz]

   The board was discussing attendance at a conference in downtown Chicago next November and whether it would "look bad" for the board to charge in hotel expenses for staying overnight rather than commuting to the conferences downtown. The expenses would have been $300 for two nights per board member (around $2,000 total). 

and why would they even need to consider this ?  Take a freakin' train.

[Ted]

   The board was discussing attendance at a conference in downtown Chicago next November and whether it would "look bad" for the board to charge in hotel expenses for staying overnight rather than commuting to the conferences downtown. The expenses would have been $300 for two nights per board member (around $2,000 total). 

and why would they even need to consider this ?  Take a freakin' train.

That is what the board decided to do this year (take the train or pay for the room out of their own pockets).

  I believe in previous years it was charged in by board members.  But, this year some board members felt it would look bad to the public to charge it in due to the referenda and the budget deficit.

[MRS. NORTHSIDER]

   The board was discussing attendance at a conference in downtown Chicago next November and whether it would "look bad" for the board to charge in hotel expenses for staying overnight rather than commuting to the conferences downtown. The expenses would have been $300 for two nights per board member (around $2,000 total). 

and why would they even need to consider this ?  Take a freakin' train.

That is what the board decided to do this year (take the train or pay for the room out of their own pockets).

  I believe in previous years it was charged in by board members.  But, this year some board members felt it would look bad to the public to charge it in due to the referenda and the budget deficit.

I'm glad to hear they decided to do this.  However, I hope it wasn't a one time decision based on the fact it would look bad because on the deficit and the fact they have to go to a referendum.  Regardless of the district's financial situation (good or bad) no board member should be staying in a hotel in downtown Chicago for any conference.  Use public transportation or drive and park in a parking garage.  What is the topic of the conference anyway?

[Ted]

What is the topic of the conference anyway?

The conference is a conference of Illinois school board members

[OakParkSpartan]

One reason to stay downtown is to interact with other conference attendees and learn from them. 

As for hiring employees, the way you state it, it sounds very sinister, but weren't many of the hires working in the classrooms?

As for the political stuff, can you give details?  Who was given vehicles?  Who was promoted?

[justme]

   The board was discussing attendance at a conference in downtown Chicago next November and whether it would "look bad" for the board to charge in hotel expenses for staying overnight rather than commuting to the conferences downtown. The expenses would have been $300 for two nights per board member (around $2,000 total). 

and why would they even need to consider this ?  Take a freakin' train.

Exactly! Berwyn promotes that we have public transportation easily available so they can park their cars in that parking deck on Grove and walk to the train.

[Ted]

One reason to stay downtown is to interact with other conference attendees and learn from them. 

I agree.  That is one of the reasons why attendees stayed overnight in hotels the previous years. But, it sounded like there were no official night sessions - just get-togethers.

As for hiring employees, the way you state it, it sounds very sinister, but weren't many of the hires working in the classrooms?

  Why does it sound sinister to you?  I was simply stating the facts.

  D100 has $12 million dollars in its reserve fund and was expecting to have a $4 million dollar budget deficit.  Instead, the budget deficit will be around $6.5 million because of hiring 43 new people.  That means, if the budget deficit is accurate, the district runs out of money in 2 years and is put on the state's financial watch list this year.

  40 of the 43 people are classroom while 3 are adminstrative.  But, most of the classroom are adjunct positions, not primary teaching positions. 

Is it fiscally risky to push the deficit up over $6 million dollars when there is only $12 million dollar in the reserve funds?  Does the district really need 3 new administrators?  Will the district be getting rid of the adjunct positions if the referendum does not pass?

  It seems a risky thing to do, given how much is in the financial reserves.  The board is betting on the referendum passing to continue these new programs.  If the referendum doesn't pass, would the risk have been worth it for only one year?

Who was given vehicles?

My uncle's favorite koumbaro.

http://www.berwyntalk.com/smf/index.php?topic=12571.0

[OakParkSpartan]

Ted,

You are writing like you are a correspondent for the Independent (RIP).

Finding out the district had hired 40 new employees despite the fact that the district was expecting a budget deficit of millions of dollars rather than laying off people to cut spending and try to balance the budget?

How about "The district hired 37 new classroom employees to assist teachers, and 3 new administrative staff". 



How often are employees called in?  My guess is offering milage would work very well, and should extend the life of the cars/trucks.

[Ted]

  The point, Brian, is that the district does not have the money to hire those 40 employees.  Those 40 people cost money - money that the district does not have.

  If the budget deficit is accurate, the district runs out of money in 2 years - what then?  Do they fire the 40 employees?  Will those employees fix all the problems of the district in only two years?

They are going to be an on-going cost - that's why I say the board is betting on the referenda passing.  Otherwise, they've put themselves in a deep hole.

It will also look bad during the referenda election campaign - the first thing voters are going to ask is did the district try to cut costs?  When it comes out that the district did not try to cut costs and, in fact, did just the opposite (increase spending by hiring more people), then it would not be held in a good light by a segment of voters in the referenda election.


  I agree that the district should offer mileage to drive in during off hours for emergencies - it would take away appearance of a conflict of interest.

[mustang54]

  Ted it doesn't matter what the district does the majority of voters will NEVER vote to raise taxes on themselves for anything. I would bet the majority of voters have no clue what goes on in the school districts. If you think the board thinks it will pass ask them to bet their board seats on it.

[Ted]

  Ted it doesn't matter what the district does the majority of voters will NEVER vote to raise taxes on themselves for anything. I would bet the majority of voters have no clue what goes on in the school districts. If you think the board thinks it will pass ask them to bet their board seats on it.

I think the referenda could pass if it is sold to the tax payer and voter in the correct way.

  But, to do so, the district has to be purer than Caesar's wife in regards to spending and, at this point, it is not.

  A second problem will be the size of the increase being proposed.  I paid $1,377.92 in property taxes last year for D100.  The two proposed referenda would increase my taxes around $500 - a 35% increase in taxes.  A lot of voters are going to balk at that.

The district has not tried to cut spending at all.  That and the size of the increase could sink the referenda.

  But, if sold correctly, it could pass.

[Harry]

Ted, you are talking about all these cuts.  why would we want to cut if it will hurt the education of kids?  Many of the additional positions were for reading teachers.  Don't we want our kids to be able to read?  Don't we want a high level of education in Berwyn?

[mom]

Transparency is a big issue with D100. If you went to National Night Out, you would have seen a huge difference between Berwyn's two elementary districts. D98 had administrators, teachers, and other staff working the table. D100 had banners but only one or two people at the most. Their banners did have those things that you check with your smart phone for information - guess you don't matter if you don't have one.

As for cost cutting, that is the problem. Where should cuts be made? I went to a WWIT meeting last month and noticed the same thing. People were talking about ways to improve the high school, but no one even mentions where the money would come from. The state is broke and our school funding system is a mess. People need to be advocating for a more equitable method of funding schools overall. Stop comparing our schools to ones in community where the schools get more money from property taxes. We will NEVER compare to those communities.

[Ted]

Ted, you are talking about all these cuts.  why would we want to cut if it will hurt the education of kids?  Many of the additional positions were for reading teachers.  Don't we want our kids to be able to read?  Don't we want a high level of education in Berwyn?

Thanks for posting, Harry.

  Actually, I am NOT talking about cuts.  I am talking about additional hiring and additional spending.  There's a big difference between the two.

  I agree that it is a good idea to spend more money on more educators for the kids of today, but what about the kids of tomorrow?  If you drain the reserve funds to pay for more educators for the kids of today and you have no reserve funds tomorrow, aren't you cheating the kids of tomorrow?

  If the district drains its reserve funds over the next 2 years so that it has no more money left, what are you going to tell the kids entering the school system in 2016 and beyond?  Sorry kid - we spent all that money in 2014 on an untested theory?

  I agree that the board is between a rock and a hard place - they want to bring in more educators (most of whom are not primary teaching positions) to try to help out the kids of today.

But, they don't have the money - If you spend all that money today, what do you tell the kids of tomorrow?

  That's the dilemma.

[Ted]

Transparency is a big issue with D100.

  I was thinking the same thing - especially after the business manager was let go because she bumped heads with Stan Fields.  I hope to God the board doesn't let the superintendent try to also be the finance director.   There should be an independent person in that role - not the superintendent.  Otherwise, it's like letting the fox guard the hen house.

As for cost cutting, that is the problem. Where should cuts be made? ...

  I agree - it's almost impossible to find places to cut unless you lay off people.  That is why hiring 43 more people makes little sense from a fiscal perspective - instead of cutting costs to reduce the deficit, you're increasing the deficit from $4 million to over $6 million.

  It's one thing to say there is no where to cut costs.  It's quite another thing to increase costs by hiring more people when you don't have enough money to pay the people who are currently employed by the district.

[chandasz]

This is why we need a referendum.

We are paying taxes for a school district of yesterday that had fewer students and more functioning infrastructure.

Were most of the hires for teaching staff? We need more teachers since we have more students and the classes are maxed out in size. The need for adjunct classroom staff could help alleviate that plus there are many special needs kids in our districts that need the extra attention.

I do have issue with the build out of the office. I do not think that employees should be able to use vehicles for personal use- that's crazy. But having them available at home only for use on official school business is another thing with a zero tolerance policy.

The downtown hotels are ridiculous. We are a 20 minute ride from downtown. Network, socialize and GO HOME.

Further cuts cannot be made without sacrificing our schools further. You talk about the kids in 2016- what about the kids now. We are at a critical spot. If we don't serve our kids- what do you think is going to happen to our town? What do you think will happen to our housing prices? Our attractiveness?

[Ted]

This is why we need a referendum. ...

But, the first words out of voters mouths will be this - Did you try to cut costs first?

The answer in D100 will be no.  That might not sit well with voters when voting on the referenda.

[mustang54]

  The big joke will be Ted is you have 12 million in reserves and you want to spend it over the next 2 years and create a 6 million a year deficit? Do you really think Berwyn voters are that stupid and will fall for anything Fields or the board says? Just because a few board members drink the kool aid and believe his shit doesn't mean voters will. Any anti referendum and tax increase people could have an easy time attacking this referendum.