R.R.STAR.COM
By Adriana Colindres
GATEHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
Posted Sep 28, 2009 @ 11:43 AM
SPRINGFIELD — Illinois school officials have extra things to contend with this academic year besides test scores and unruly students. They also must comply with a couple of new laws requiring them to more readily provide information about educators' salaries and other forms of compensation.
The lawmakers who pushed the pair of measures, which sailed through the General Assembly without a single "no" vote, say they were motivated by a desire for greater transparency in government. Some also said they were inspired by news reports about how some Chicago-area school boards were quietly awarding large perks to top administrators.
"We were finding that a number of superintendents would be given huge bonuses and huge boosts on their final salaries, and that would increase their pensions - sometimes doubling it, almost," said Rep. Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored one of the plans.
"This is just a small stab at giving the public the opportunity to have that information," Davis added. "You don't have to go through a big Freedom of Information fight."
Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican who co-sponsored one of the new laws, said the public needs to know "the total cost of a superintendent."
"I have a sneaking suspicion that some school districts, not all, hide the true perks and compensation package for their superintendents," he said. "Teachers are not as much of a mystery, and they don't have all the perks that administrators have."
The two laws impose different sets of rules, and they have different implementation dates.
Under the plan previously known as Senate Bill 2270, every school district must post on its Internet site "an itemized salary compensation report" for every employee who holds an administrative certificate and who works in that capacity. The report must include such details as base salary, bonuses, pension contributions, the cost of health insurance and any other form of compensation.
The report must be posted by Oct. 1 of every year, starting on Thursday. It also must be presented at a school board meeting.
Under House Bill 2235, every school board must report the base salary and benefits of the district superintendent, all administrators and teachers by July 1, starting in 2010. The information, including vacation and sick days, bonuses and retirement enhancements, will be sent to the State Board of Education.
Public universities and community colleges must report similar information about their administrators, faculty members and instructors to the Illinois Board of Higher Education.
The State Board of Education already makes existing salary data for educators available to the public through Freedom of Information Act requests, said spokeswoman Mary Fergus. The expanded data also will be accessible, but the agency hasn't decided yet exactly how that will be done through FOIA requests, through its Web site or in some other manner.
Information about public university employees' salaries presently may be obtained through the individual institutions. Once that data is reported to the Board of Higher Education, the agency hopes to post it on the Web for easy access, said spokesman Don Sevener.
The new laws have generated a mixed reaction from the education community.
A spokesman for the Illinois Education Association, a teachers' union, said disclosing information about compensation "is not an issue that makes all of our members happy."
"Some people are comfortable with it. Others are not," said spokesman Charles McBarron. "On the other hand, I think everybody understands the concept of public employees and tax dollars."
Individual teachers who were contacted in the past few days said they recognize that they're public employees and that taxpayers provide the dollars used to compensate them.
"I don't see a problem," said Bob Darling, who teaches at Peoria Richwoods High School.
But he said salary numbers for teachers can be misleading because they don't spell out how many hours teachers work or what extra duties they handle.
While information about educators' pay already is available to the public, the new laws are meant to offer extra details that are easier to obtain.
"Personally, I believe in transparency," said Rep. Sandra Pihos, R-Glen Ellyn. "I think it's important that we be accountable to our public."
The Illinois Association of School Administrators has been working to get the word out about the new laws, and by now their existence is "pretty well widely known in educator circles," said executive director Brent Clark.
"It's part of the new culture, or alleged culture of transparency," he said. "We've not had a lot of that in Illinois."
Some questions remain, though, about how to comply with the new requirements.
"That's the biggest concern that I'm hearing," Clark said. "They want to do it right."
Jacqueline Wernz, an associate at the Chicago law firm Franczek Radelet P.C., which advises school districts throughout Illinois and the rest of the country, said the two new laws are similar in intent.
But she added: "There a number of little differences in the laws which are leading to district confusion."
One issue is whether the information due in July should deal with the just-ended school year or the upcoming school year.
"We've said there's a very good argument both ways," Wernz said.
State Board of Education officials have alerted school districts that they should consult with their own attorneys about meeting the requirements that take effect Oct. 1. ISBE says it will provide guidance later about the data-collection due in July.
Davis said it shouldn't be difficult for school districts to put together the information about their employees.
"I don't foresee any obstacles because all school systems, no matter how poor they are, they have to use computer technology," she said.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
A Class Act
Superintendent of Elgin District U-46 Rejects Salary Increase
From District 100 Watchdog
The superintendent of Illinois’ second largest school district informed administrators and non-union staff members that he will not be accepting the 3.7 percent salary increase that is called for in his contract for the 2009/2010 school year.
In a message to U-46 administrators and non-union employees, Dr. José M. Torres wrote, “Due to the difficult finances that we find ourselves in as a country and as a state, I have informed the Board of Education that I will not be accepting the salary increase for the 2009/2010 school year that I had negotiated with the Board when I was hired last year.”
In the same message, Torres announced that he will also not be recommending salary increases for administrators and non-union employees for the upcoming school year.
“The decision regarding salary increases for employees who do not have negotiated salary increases has been very difficult to make. I think we can all agree, though, that foregoing our salary increases at a time when so many families in our communities and across the country are struggling is the right thing to do,” Torres wrote.
The savings from not providing salary increases for administrators and non-union employees is estimated at $1.5 million next school year. “While this savings will not fix our fundamental revenue problems, it will help,” says Torres.
In his e-mail, Torres emphasizes that he, and the U-46 Board of Education, value the commitment of all staff members to the district, its students, and communities. He further notes that he and the Board will remember that administrators and other non-union employees sacrificed a salary increase.
Under the terms of his original contract, Torres is to receive an annual pay increase equal to the average annual percentage received by teachers. Had the raise been accepted, Torres’ annual salary would have increased from $220,000 to $228,140 next school year.
From District 100 Watchdog
The superintendent of Illinois’ second largest school district informed administrators and non-union staff members that he will not be accepting the 3.7 percent salary increase that is called for in his contract for the 2009/2010 school year.
In a message to U-46 administrators and non-union employees, Dr. José M. Torres wrote, “Due to the difficult finances that we find ourselves in as a country and as a state, I have informed the Board of Education that I will not be accepting the salary increase for the 2009/2010 school year that I had negotiated with the Board when I was hired last year.”
In the same message, Torres announced that he will also not be recommending salary increases for administrators and non-union employees for the upcoming school year.
“The decision regarding salary increases for employees who do not have negotiated salary increases has been very difficult to make. I think we can all agree, though, that foregoing our salary increases at a time when so many families in our communities and across the country are struggling is the right thing to do,” Torres wrote.
The savings from not providing salary increases for administrators and non-union employees is estimated at $1.5 million next school year. “While this savings will not fix our fundamental revenue problems, it will help,” says Torres.
In his e-mail, Torres emphasizes that he, and the U-46 Board of Education, value the commitment of all staff members to the district, its students, and communities. He further notes that he and the Board will remember that administrators and other non-union employees sacrificed a salary increase.
Under the terms of his original contract, Torres is to receive an annual pay increase equal to the average annual percentage received by teachers. Had the raise been accepted, Torres’ annual salary would have increased from $220,000 to $228,140 next school year.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Pay vs. Performance: Is the money right for your superintendent?
By Annie Reed and Brian Hudson
Suburban Life Publications
Wed Sep 23, 2009, 12:20 PM CDT
In many communities, school district superintendents are among the highest-paid public employees, pulling in close to $200,000 or more in salary and benefits.
Yet despite a decade-old law, some taxpayers are still hindered from seeing how their school boards review superintendent job performance, according to a recent review of contracts.
Three months ago the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the public has the right to see superintendents’ contracts, including the goals that school districts are required to set for them.
After the court’s decision, Suburban Life Publications collected and reviewed some three dozen superintendent contracts from suburban Cook, DuPage and Kane counties. The analysis suggests that in many districts, the contract’s performance goals — which Illinois schools boards must set according to a state law — do not have the teeth lawmakers intended.
Since 1998, a state law has required that multi-year superintendent contracts be “performance based” and set goals. The idea was that salary and compensation should be closely tied to improvements in the district.
While many school boards use the goals to chart a clear course for the district’s chief administrator, at least several set only broad or vague objectives — in some cases one or two sentences that amount to little more than a job description.
Measuring superintendent performance against such indistinct goals can be difficult, at least for observers. School boards regularly review superintendent performance, but it is done in closed-door meetings — which means in some cases taxpayers can be shut out of directly evaluating their schools’ head administrator.
EVALUATION
Given that superintendent contracts all achieve essentially the same purpose, the districts’ agreements can be considerably distinct. After all, the contracts tend to be written by different lawyers and legal counsels, and even in the rigid confines of a legal document, an author’s pen can show through.
Likewise, the 34 districts that Suburban Life Publications looked at take varying stance on superintendent performance goals.
The most common approach was to list roughly a half-dozen goals, ranging from the broad — “curriculum review” appeared often in some form or another — to specific district initiatives.
Some districts were more precise than that and included a dozen or more specific goals, indicators and the actions taken toward them, updating the goals each year and making them accessible to the public.
In St. Charles Community Unit School District 303, officials compiled Superintendent Donald Schlomann’s goals for 2008-11 in a report that details how a goal has been met or what plans are underway to meet them in the future.
Some districts’ contracts, however, were scarce on goals.
Sandra Doebert is superintendent of Lemont High School District 210. When her five-year contract was signed in 2007, it included both a performance goal and an indicator of success. But neither are very specific.
The 19-word, one-sentence goal says Doebert must implement and evaluate curriculum improvements “determined to foster improved academic achievement.” She must report to the board on those improvement programs by June 2011.
In Glen Ellyn’s Community Consolidated School District 89, Superintendent John Perdue has just three goals in his contract. He is required to evaluate student performance, review both the curriculum and instructional services and report his findings on all of them. The goals are completed with the last requirement — the report to the school board.
District 89’s school board president, Lori Gaspar, admits that the contract goals are nebulous. But that does not mean the board doesn’t regularly define and direct Perdue’s job, she said.
At several points during the year, Perdue and the school board meet to discuss job performance, Gaspar said. Once a year, the board members each offer a list of critiques. The lists are compiled and, after synching them with the objectives for the entire school district, lead to the superintendent’s yearlong goals.
Administrators in Lemont District 210 also create yearly goals, which are compiled in an operational plan, which defines the district’s work for the upcoming year, School Board President Beverly Marzec said in an e-mail. In addition to Doebert’s end-of-the-year review, the board checks up on the plan twice each year.
The year-to-year process is more flexible than creating goals just once when the contract is signed, Gaspar said. Being too specific could hem in the superintendent.
“It’s not really practical to put every goal in the contract,” said Mike Kiser, a Downers Grove-based education lawyer.
While it might be more flexible, it also allows for less public scrutiny.
Most districts conduct an annual or quarterly review of their superintendent, but it is done in closed-door meetings. Discussions about personnel are not covered by open meetings laws — regardless of whether the contract includes specific goals, Kiser said.
Still, detailed contract goals give insight into superintendent progress.
In Downers Groves’ Maercker School District 60, for instance, Superintendent Catherine Berning’s contract last year included, in an appendix, a spreadsheet listing 15 goals and what steps were taken each quarter to address them.
But it would be difficult for the public at large to review superintendents directly, said Gaspar, the school board president in District 89, because so much of it is based in interaction with educators, administrators and the elected officials.
Instead, she said people should sound off on the schools and the district as a whole — as well as their elected officials.
“How are they going to evaluate John Perdue? They don’t work with him on a daily basis,” she said. “But they certainly can rate the district and the schools. … If the school district wasn’t doing well, it would reflect on John Perdue.”
ACCOUNTABILITY
The 1998 “performance-based contract” law gives school districts wide latitude in how to define a performance goal, said U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert, R-13th, of Hinsdale, who co-sponsored the bill when she represented the 81st district in the General Assembly.
She said the goal of the contract was not “vague or watered-down performance measures” but to ensure that top administrators are being held accountable.
So is that happening? Education attorney Kiser said he’s not so sure. “The law doesn’t make a lot of difference in my opinion.”
This year, Illinois lawmakers passed another law requiring transparency for superintendent contracts, this one targeting compensation. By Oct. 1 each year, districts must publish reports online showing not only salary, but also benefits, perks and bonuses for all administrators.
“We are trying to demand greater accountability,” said state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-24th, of Hinsdale, who co-sponsored the bill, “to make the evaluation of a superintendent’s worth and cost more transparent to taxpayers and school board members.”
Dillard, who is running for governor, said he might also push for further changes to the 1998 legislation.
“If we determine there is no basis for a good evaluation of a superintendent’s goals or values, we will do what we often do, which is massage or enhance the law we passed,” he said.
“One mandate I will give (school boards) is to make them more accountable.”
VIEW CONTRACT AND GOALS CREATED FOR YOUR LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS
COMPARE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS OF TOP DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS
READ Q&A WITH YOUR SCHOOL BOARD OFFICIALS ON HOW THEY SET GOALS
Suburban Life Publications
Wed Sep 23, 2009, 12:20 PM CDT
In many communities, school district superintendents are among the highest-paid public employees, pulling in close to $200,000 or more in salary and benefits.
Yet despite a decade-old law, some taxpayers are still hindered from seeing how their school boards review superintendent job performance, according to a recent review of contracts.
Three months ago the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the public has the right to see superintendents’ contracts, including the goals that school districts are required to set for them.
After the court’s decision, Suburban Life Publications collected and reviewed some three dozen superintendent contracts from suburban Cook, DuPage and Kane counties. The analysis suggests that in many districts, the contract’s performance goals — which Illinois schools boards must set according to a state law — do not have the teeth lawmakers intended.
Since 1998, a state law has required that multi-year superintendent contracts be “performance based” and set goals. The idea was that salary and compensation should be closely tied to improvements in the district.
While many school boards use the goals to chart a clear course for the district’s chief administrator, at least several set only broad or vague objectives — in some cases one or two sentences that amount to little more than a job description.
Measuring superintendent performance against such indistinct goals can be difficult, at least for observers. School boards regularly review superintendent performance, but it is done in closed-door meetings — which means in some cases taxpayers can be shut out of directly evaluating their schools’ head administrator.
EVALUATION
Given that superintendent contracts all achieve essentially the same purpose, the districts’ agreements can be considerably distinct. After all, the contracts tend to be written by different lawyers and legal counsels, and even in the rigid confines of a legal document, an author’s pen can show through.
Likewise, the 34 districts that Suburban Life Publications looked at take varying stance on superintendent performance goals.
The most common approach was to list roughly a half-dozen goals, ranging from the broad — “curriculum review” appeared often in some form or another — to specific district initiatives.
Some districts were more precise than that and included a dozen or more specific goals, indicators and the actions taken toward them, updating the goals each year and making them accessible to the public.
In St. Charles Community Unit School District 303, officials compiled Superintendent Donald Schlomann’s goals for 2008-11 in a report that details how a goal has been met or what plans are underway to meet them in the future.
Some districts’ contracts, however, were scarce on goals.
Sandra Doebert is superintendent of Lemont High School District 210. When her five-year contract was signed in 2007, it included both a performance goal and an indicator of success. But neither are very specific.
The 19-word, one-sentence goal says Doebert must implement and evaluate curriculum improvements “determined to foster improved academic achievement.” She must report to the board on those improvement programs by June 2011.
In Glen Ellyn’s Community Consolidated School District 89, Superintendent John Perdue has just three goals in his contract. He is required to evaluate student performance, review both the curriculum and instructional services and report his findings on all of them. The goals are completed with the last requirement — the report to the school board.
District 89’s school board president, Lori Gaspar, admits that the contract goals are nebulous. But that does not mean the board doesn’t regularly define and direct Perdue’s job, she said.
At several points during the year, Perdue and the school board meet to discuss job performance, Gaspar said. Once a year, the board members each offer a list of critiques. The lists are compiled and, after synching them with the objectives for the entire school district, lead to the superintendent’s yearlong goals.
Administrators in Lemont District 210 also create yearly goals, which are compiled in an operational plan, which defines the district’s work for the upcoming year, School Board President Beverly Marzec said in an e-mail. In addition to Doebert’s end-of-the-year review, the board checks up on the plan twice each year.
The year-to-year process is more flexible than creating goals just once when the contract is signed, Gaspar said. Being too specific could hem in the superintendent.
“It’s not really practical to put every goal in the contract,” said Mike Kiser, a Downers Grove-based education lawyer.
While it might be more flexible, it also allows for less public scrutiny.
Most districts conduct an annual or quarterly review of their superintendent, but it is done in closed-door meetings. Discussions about personnel are not covered by open meetings laws — regardless of whether the contract includes specific goals, Kiser said.
Still, detailed contract goals give insight into superintendent progress.
In Downers Groves’ Maercker School District 60, for instance, Superintendent Catherine Berning’s contract last year included, in an appendix, a spreadsheet listing 15 goals and what steps were taken each quarter to address them.
But it would be difficult for the public at large to review superintendents directly, said Gaspar, the school board president in District 89, because so much of it is based in interaction with educators, administrators and the elected officials.
Instead, she said people should sound off on the schools and the district as a whole — as well as their elected officials.
“How are they going to evaluate John Perdue? They don’t work with him on a daily basis,” she said. “But they certainly can rate the district and the schools. … If the school district wasn’t doing well, it would reflect on John Perdue.”
ACCOUNTABILITY
The 1998 “performance-based contract” law gives school districts wide latitude in how to define a performance goal, said U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert, R-13th, of Hinsdale, who co-sponsored the bill when she represented the 81st district in the General Assembly.
She said the goal of the contract was not “vague or watered-down performance measures” but to ensure that top administrators are being held accountable.
So is that happening? Education attorney Kiser said he’s not so sure. “The law doesn’t make a lot of difference in my opinion.”
This year, Illinois lawmakers passed another law requiring transparency for superintendent contracts, this one targeting compensation. By Oct. 1 each year, districts must publish reports online showing not only salary, but also benefits, perks and bonuses for all administrators.
“We are trying to demand greater accountability,” said state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-24th, of Hinsdale, who co-sponsored the bill, “to make the evaluation of a superintendent’s worth and cost more transparent to taxpayers and school board members.”
Dillard, who is running for governor, said he might also push for further changes to the 1998 legislation.
“If we determine there is no basis for a good evaluation of a superintendent’s goals or values, we will do what we often do, which is massage or enhance the law we passed,” he said.
“One mandate I will give (school boards) is to make them more accountable.”
VIEW CONTRACT AND GOALS CREATED FOR YOUR LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS
COMPARE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS OF TOP DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS
READ Q&A WITH YOUR SCHOOL BOARD OFFICIALS ON HOW THEY SET GOALS
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Chalet Renovation a Waste
Letter to the editor
The Doings Western Springs
September 22, 2009
I see by the paper (The Doings Sept. 17) that Pleasant Dale Park District is going to pump in another $270,000 to renovate the Chalet.
What a waste of money!
It was a mistake to buy the Chalet in the first place; it has consistently lost money and now the park district is going to spend more.
It is time to sell it or shut it down. Divest.
Dolores Cizek, Countryside,
former Burr Ridge village trustee
Renovations set to begin at the Chalet
September 14, 2009
By ROB SIEBERT rsiebert@pioneerlocal.com
The Pleasant Dale Park District's Chalet fitness center will undergo roughly $270,000in renovations before the end of September.
Using $100,000 in capital funds, and revenue funds set aside for the Chalet, 19,000 square feet of the 66,000-square-foot facility will be altered.
Some community members have demanded that the Chalet be shut down or sold, as the park district has struggled to maintain it in recent years. However, park district Director Katherine Parker said the board is determined to keep the facility open.
"Transforming most of (the Chalet's) space into a family oriented sports facility seems to be the one avenue to ensure that it will go forward without draining more tax dollars," Parker said.
The racquetball courts in the back half of the building will be torn down to make room for a new indoor multipurpose field, which may be used for soccer, basketball and volleyball.
The flooring for the field will be done by Sport Court, a company which specializes in athletic flooring that resists impact shock, thus creating a safer turf for athletes. The park district has high hopes for the new field.
"It is hoped that the facility will bring in revenue from tournaments, as well as classes," Parker said.
Lighting is also expected to be installed above the field.
The Chalet's weight room equipment and exercise machines have already been moved on to its basketball court, which will become its new gym and weight room.
The district also hopes to paint the interior walls surrounding the new construction, as well as the facility's female restroom. The district is looking for companies to donate 55 gallons of eggshell-colored paint and finish to the Chalet.
Chalet manager Nancy McKenna said construction is expected to begin this week, and end by the first week in October.
"We want people to know that there's room for everybody, and we're going to make use of all the space we have," McKenna said.
McKenna said after the talk about the Chalet in the community and in board meetings, to see change finally coming to fruition is a good feeling.
"To finally see it all come together is truly gratifying," McKenna said.
The Doings Western Springs
September 22, 2009
I see by the paper (The Doings Sept. 17) that Pleasant Dale Park District is going to pump in another $270,000 to renovate the Chalet.
What a waste of money!
It was a mistake to buy the Chalet in the first place; it has consistently lost money and now the park district is going to spend more.
It is time to sell it or shut it down. Divest.
Dolores Cizek, Countryside,
former Burr Ridge village trustee
Renovations set to begin at the Chalet
September 14, 2009
By ROB SIEBERT rsiebert@pioneerlocal.com
The Pleasant Dale Park District's Chalet fitness center will undergo roughly $270,000in renovations before the end of September.
Using $100,000 in capital funds, and revenue funds set aside for the Chalet, 19,000 square feet of the 66,000-square-foot facility will be altered.
Some community members have demanded that the Chalet be shut down or sold, as the park district has struggled to maintain it in recent years. However, park district Director Katherine Parker said the board is determined to keep the facility open.
"Transforming most of (the Chalet's) space into a family oriented sports facility seems to be the one avenue to ensure that it will go forward without draining more tax dollars," Parker said.
The racquetball courts in the back half of the building will be torn down to make room for a new indoor multipurpose field, which may be used for soccer, basketball and volleyball.
The flooring for the field will be done by Sport Court, a company which specializes in athletic flooring that resists impact shock, thus creating a safer turf for athletes. The park district has high hopes for the new field.
"It is hoped that the facility will bring in revenue from tournaments, as well as classes," Parker said.
Lighting is also expected to be installed above the field.
The Chalet's weight room equipment and exercise machines have already been moved on to its basketball court, which will become its new gym and weight room.
The district also hopes to paint the interior walls surrounding the new construction, as well as the facility's female restroom. The district is looking for companies to donate 55 gallons of eggshell-colored paint and finish to the Chalet.
Chalet manager Nancy McKenna said construction is expected to begin this week, and end by the first week in October.
"We want people to know that there's room for everybody, and we're going to make use of all the space we have," McKenna said.
McKenna said after the talk about the Chalet in the community and in board meetings, to see change finally coming to fruition is a good feeling.
"To finally see it all come together is truly gratifying," McKenna said.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Fireworks!
Looks like we spoke too soon...
You don't have to wait until the 4th of July to see fireworks, they are going on almost daily at the Pleasant Dale Park District.
Apparently things are not going so smoothly with their renovation plans. There was another special meeting on September 15 and again on September 16. What's going on over there?
Here are some questions we have for our park district leaders:
You don't have to wait until the 4th of July to see fireworks, they are going on almost daily at the Pleasant Dale Park District.
Apparently things are not going so smoothly with their renovation plans. There was another special meeting on September 15 and again on September 16. What's going on over there?
Here are some questions we have for our park district leaders:
- Who exactly is in charge over there?
- Why, oh why isn't Katherine Parker's name listed on anything?? It's not on your website, it's not on the community needs assessment survey that Katherine herself sent out and it's not on your brochure. Why are you trying to hide her?
- Why are your employees not informed of board meeting dates and times? On two different occasions we contacted the park district and spoke to two different employees to inquire about the special meetings and neither person could give us any information. Why don't you tell your employees when you have special meetings scheduled? Don't you want the public to know?
- Why doesn't the park district post all their special and continued meetings on their marquis? Don't you want the public to attend them?
- Why all the secrecy, and story changing and half truths about this renovation project?
- Why is your one and only confirmed tenant pulling out of the Chalet renovation? Who do you have lined up to replace this loss of projected income?
- Isn't there a conflict of interest when board president Brad Martin plans to spend $300,000 on a renovation project to house his sister-in-law Sue Keck's volleyball leagues and programs? Spending tax dollars to directly benefit a family member doesn't sound right. Doesn't she already have signed contracts elsewhere for this year?
- Why is your website not current? Why isn't the Chalet renovation project on the website? In some areas Rosalyn Wendt is still listed as the director, the Extra Innings after school program is still listed at the Chalet and Savoy Park is non-existent. Rather than renovate the Chalet, why not start with your website?
It's great that you are trying to make things better, but be honest, forthright and on the up and up!
Remember, you were elected to serve your community, not yourselves.
Brad Martin can be reached via email at martin8210@comcast.net. Try emailing him to get some answers.
Friday, September 11, 2009
A Shame
According to the Board of Education Meeting Minutes from August 19, 2009
Action Item:
By a vote of 5-1, (1 abstention) the Board approved upholding the Superintendent’s disposition to Mrs. Campos dated June 4, 2009; upholding the decision of the Superintendent requiring H1N1 testing of Mrs. Campos’ daughter; and to upholding the denial to reimburse Mrs. Campos for medical expenses relating to influenza H1N1 testing of her daughter.
Watch out folks, your kids could be next!
Action Item:
By a vote of 5-1, (1 abstention) the Board approved upholding the Superintendent’s disposition to Mrs. Campos dated June 4, 2009; upholding the decision of the Superintendent requiring H1N1 testing of Mrs. Campos’ daughter; and to upholding the denial to reimburse Mrs. Campos for medical expenses relating to influenza H1N1 testing of her daughter.
Watch out folks, your kids could be next!
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Well Done!
It was nice to see Pleasantdale Park board members Carol McMurray, Ernie Moon and Colleen Pettrone along with Park Director Katherine Parker work together for several hours to read through proposals, share discussion and reach an agreement on the renovations at the Chalet Fitness Club.
It was also refreshing that they allowed input and answered questions from those in attendance.
While there is much work to be done, it is hoped that by working together and keeping the lines of communication open, this project will come together to benefit the community.
Good luck to you all on this endeavor!
It was also refreshing that they allowed input and answered questions from those in attendance.
While there is much work to be done, it is hoped that by working together and keeping the lines of communication open, this project will come together to benefit the community.
Good luck to you all on this endeavor!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Highlights, Lowlights and Pieces
Highlights and lowlights from the Pleasantdale Park Board meeting last night...
Only three people at the park district can sign checks: Brad Martin, Wade Brewer and Colleen Pettrone. Last month, two of them signed a check for a payment of $941 for a TOILET SEAT! Is it made of gold?
For the third time in six months, representatives from auditing firm Virchow and Krause attended the board meeting to present the state of affairs. In April they said the park was doing very well. In June the park was broke. Now, it's September and the financial picture is still up in the air. They did admonish the park board about the necessity of a check and balance system to secure any remaining funds that they have. Let's hope the board heeds their warnings...but don't hold your breath.
After discussion of several items, some that were on the agenda and some that were not, talk turned to the Chalet Renovation. Remember that survey you got a few weeks ago that asked you what kind of programming you would like to see there? The responses must have been overwhelming because construction begins this Saturday, September 12!!
You might be wondering what they plan on doing. Here is what they released. Click on the image to enlarge it.
Now you might be wondering what all this is going to cost a park district that is broke, right? Well, based on discussions at last night's meeting, they really aren't sure. They are hoping to spend between $100,000 - $125,000 on a 19,000 square foot renovation!
They are not going out to bid on this project because they are going to 'piece meal' it together. Retired local contractor Joe Jura is working on the project. Per his presentation, he is soliciting contracts from various companies. "If it's too much money, (he will) bring in people he knows."
The cash strapped Village of Willow Springs was kind enough to waive all permit fees. Board president Martin is in good with the mayor and finance chairman over there. Let's hope they aren't kind enough to waive inspections, especially an asbestos inspection.
So far, demolition is expected to cost about $19,000 but this does not include removing the debris. That will cost another $16,000-19,000. The flooring will cost $96,000 for colored flooring and $120,000 for maple.
They did not discuss the cost of moving the weight room equipment, repairing the racquetball courts, repairing the heating and air conditioning, replacing the carpet, cleaning the area, installing new lighting, painting the walls, purchasing the equipment needed for an indoor soccer field, two basketball courts and four volleyball courts and striping to regulation size which is all part of this renovation project.
You might be wondering if the Park District is going to go out to bid on a project of this magnitude. Nope. They don't have to because each 'piece' will be under $20,000. As for the Sport Court(TM) flooring, they don't have to get bids on that either because only one company sells it.
The interesting part of this discussion was when two board members said they were never given the document posted above. They appeared to be in the dark about this entire project other than the fact that it has been discussed in bits and pieces.
Board member Carol McMurray stated, "It would be nice as a board to see the figures in print. We have nothing in writing. We don't have any numbers in front of us. We owe that to the community." Amen sister!
Board member Ernie Moon added, "Definitely. It's only fair to the community that we do our job right instead of just guessing (the cost).
We are not opposed to this project. It could work and bring the park district out of their financial debt. Board member Martin said he has several volleyball leagues ready to come in, although nothing is in writing.
The problem with this project is all the pieces. Piecing together the renovation; releasing pieces of information to the community and even fewer bits and pieces to the entire park board. There are so many unanswered questions.
When you are spending the community's money, you have to be on the up and up; cautious, prudent and sure of what you are doing. You have to use companies that are secure, insured, licensed and bonded. With a project of this magnitude, you should go through a proper bidding process. You need to have all the facts and figures in front of you. You cannot guesstimate how much it will cost.
This project has potential, they just need to do it right. Maybe they can ask their neighbors across the street how the process works to get a project done right. After all, they are just finishing one and that was only 800 square feet, not 19,000.
If you want to weigh in or get more information on this project, the board announced to the audience that they will continue discussion at a "special meeting" at the Chalet onFriday at 7 p.m. At approx. midnight, after all in attendance had gone, the meeting was changed to Thursday, September 10th at 3 p.m.
Oh and in case you are wondering, yes we feel that meeting is in direct violation of the Open Meetings Act.
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/openmeet.pdf
Like we said, when you are spending the community's money, do things right and on the up and up. Please.
Only three people at the park district can sign checks: Brad Martin, Wade Brewer and Colleen Pettrone. Last month, two of them signed a check for a payment of $941 for a TOILET SEAT! Is it made of gold?
For the third time in six months, representatives from auditing firm Virchow and Krause attended the board meeting to present the state of affairs. In April they said the park was doing very well. In June the park was broke. Now, it's September and the financial picture is still up in the air. They did admonish the park board about the necessity of a check and balance system to secure any remaining funds that they have. Let's hope the board heeds their warnings...but don't hold your breath.
After discussion of several items, some that were on the agenda and some that were not, talk turned to the Chalet Renovation. Remember that survey you got a few weeks ago that asked you what kind of programming you would like to see there? The responses must have been overwhelming because construction begins this Saturday, September 12!!
You might be wondering what they plan on doing. Here is what they released. Click on the image to enlarge it.
Now you might be wondering what all this is going to cost a park district that is broke, right? Well, based on discussions at last night's meeting, they really aren't sure. They are hoping to spend between $100,000 - $125,000 on a 19,000 square foot renovation!
They are not going out to bid on this project because they are going to 'piece meal' it together. Retired local contractor Joe Jura is working on the project. Per his presentation, he is soliciting contracts from various companies. "If it's too much money, (he will) bring in people he knows."
The cash strapped Village of Willow Springs was kind enough to waive all permit fees. Board president Martin is in good with the mayor and finance chairman over there. Let's hope they aren't kind enough to waive inspections, especially an asbestos inspection.
So far, demolition is expected to cost about $19,000 but this does not include removing the debris. That will cost another $16,000-19,000. The flooring will cost $96,000 for colored flooring and $120,000 for maple.
They did not discuss the cost of moving the weight room equipment, repairing the racquetball courts, repairing the heating and air conditioning, replacing the carpet, cleaning the area, installing new lighting, painting the walls, purchasing the equipment needed for an indoor soccer field, two basketball courts and four volleyball courts and striping to regulation size which is all part of this renovation project.
You might be wondering if the Park District is going to go out to bid on a project of this magnitude. Nope. They don't have to because each 'piece' will be under $20,000. As for the Sport Court(TM) flooring, they don't have to get bids on that either because only one company sells it.
The interesting part of this discussion was when two board members said they were never given the document posted above. They appeared to be in the dark about this entire project other than the fact that it has been discussed in bits and pieces.
Board member Carol McMurray stated, "It would be nice as a board to see the figures in print. We have nothing in writing. We don't have any numbers in front of us. We owe that to the community." Amen sister!
Board member Ernie Moon added, "Definitely. It's only fair to the community that we do our job right instead of just guessing (the cost).
We are not opposed to this project. It could work and bring the park district out of their financial debt. Board member Martin said he has several volleyball leagues ready to come in, although nothing is in writing.
The problem with this project is all the pieces. Piecing together the renovation; releasing pieces of information to the community and even fewer bits and pieces to the entire park board. There are so many unanswered questions.
When you are spending the community's money, you have to be on the up and up; cautious, prudent and sure of what you are doing. You have to use companies that are secure, insured, licensed and bonded. With a project of this magnitude, you should go through a proper bidding process. You need to have all the facts and figures in front of you. You cannot guesstimate how much it will cost.
This project has potential, they just need to do it right. Maybe they can ask their neighbors across the street how the process works to get a project done right. After all, they are just finishing one and that was only 800 square feet, not 19,000.
If you want to weigh in or get more information on this project, the board announced to the audience that they will continue discussion at a "special meeting" at the Chalet on
Oh and in case you are wondering, yes we feel that meeting is in direct violation of the Open Meetings Act.
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/openmeet.pdf
Like we said, when you are spending the community's money, do things right and on the up and up. Please.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Dollars and Sense
The kindergarten enrollment at Pleasantdale is at 86 children. 54 of the children attend half day and 32 attend the extended day program.
There are four sections of kindergarten. One section is afternoon kindergarten and three of the sections consist of half day morning kindergarten followed by afternoon extended day playtime.
In the half day sections, there are 22, 22, 22, and 20 respectively. In the extended day classes there are 9, 10 and 13 kids.
Does it make any sense that we cram 22 kids in a class when they are there to actually learn, but when they extend their day to play there are considerably less kids?
Shouldn't we have less kids in the half day program when learning is taking place by giving the kids a more favorable student to teacher ratio?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have six sections of half day kindergarten and two sections of extended day?
It would look something like this:
Teacher A would have a morning and an afternoon class. The morning class would have 14 kids, the afternoon class would have 13 kids.
Teacher B would have a morning and an afternoon class. The morning class would have 14 kids, the afternoon class would have 13 kids.
Teacher C would have a morning/extended day class. This class would have 16 kids.
Teacher D would have a morning/extended day class. This class would have 16 kids.
Many parents request morning kindergarten, but we are confident they would be just as happy sending their children in the afternoon if the class sizes were smaller.
It all boils down to dollars and sense. Common sense. Superintendent Fredisdorf hopes that the half day morning students will add on the extended day option so he can charge them money. It really is all about the money. If it wasn’t, he and the school board that allows this, would not be doing such a disservice to the kids in kindergarten.
Undoubtedly, you have heard of Dr. Fredisdorf's "fiscal prudence." As far as fiscal prudence goes, are they really being fiscally prudent when they pay three teachers a full salary to be there but are not allowed to teach anything? Can you imagine how much more the kids would learn if the teachers were allowed to teach?
Do the research and the math...kids in smaller classes will gain more in their early formative years of learning. Oh, and you can bet that any kindergarten teacher you ask will tell you the same thing.
It's time to wake up and ask our superintendent and board of eduction members to do what's best for the kids in our district!
Editor's Note:
Our figures are wrong. We heard there are even more kids currently in the half day kindergarten classes than we previously reported. :(
There are four sections of kindergarten. One section is afternoon kindergarten and three of the sections consist of half day morning kindergarten followed by afternoon extended day playtime.
In the half day sections, there are 22, 22, 22, and 20 respectively. In the extended day classes there are 9, 10 and 13 kids.
Does it make any sense that we cram 22 kids in a class when they are there to actually learn, but when they extend their day to play there are considerably less kids?
Shouldn't we have less kids in the half day program when learning is taking place by giving the kids a more favorable student to teacher ratio?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have six sections of half day kindergarten and two sections of extended day?
It would look something like this:
Teacher A would have a morning and an afternoon class. The morning class would have 14 kids, the afternoon class would have 13 kids.
Teacher B would have a morning and an afternoon class. The morning class would have 14 kids, the afternoon class would have 13 kids.
Teacher C would have a morning/extended day class. This class would have 16 kids.
Teacher D would have a morning/extended day class. This class would have 16 kids.
Many parents request morning kindergarten, but we are confident they would be just as happy sending their children in the afternoon if the class sizes were smaller.
It all boils down to dollars and sense. Common sense. Superintendent Fredisdorf hopes that the half day morning students will add on the extended day option so he can charge them money. It really is all about the money. If it wasn’t, he and the school board that allows this, would not be doing such a disservice to the kids in kindergarten.
Undoubtedly, you have heard of Dr. Fredisdorf's "fiscal prudence." As far as fiscal prudence goes, are they really being fiscally prudent when they pay three teachers a full salary to be there but are not allowed to teach anything? Can you imagine how much more the kids would learn if the teachers were allowed to teach?
Do the research and the math...kids in smaller classes will gain more in their early formative years of learning. Oh, and you can bet that any kindergarten teacher you ask will tell you the same thing.
It's time to wake up and ask our superintendent and board of eduction members to do what's best for the kids in our district!
Editor's Note:
Our figures are wrong. We heard there are even more kids currently in the half day kindergarten classes than we previously reported. :(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)