Thank you to The Doings newspaper and editor Chris LaFortune!
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/westernsprings/news/3036990,western-springs-d107funds-012411-s1.article
Interesting. This would have never happened without The Doings editorial by Chris LaFortune which sent Superintendent Fredisdorf reeling.
Below you see the agenda items for the January board meeting. These were decided upon at the December board meeting.
"Items submitted for the January 2011 agenda include: Mid-year review of non-tenured teachers and administrators, Town Hall Meeting Planning, Approve Community Relations (Sec, 8) Board Policies, Curriculum Council Update, Declassify Selected Closes Session Minutes, Review Legal Services, Approve Elimination of Registration Fees and District 181 Withdrawal From LADSE."
Nowhere does it mention discussing the abatement of bonds at the January meeting!
On Friday, January 14 the board of education had a tentative agenda online for the January 19 meeting. This agenda didn't mention using surplus funds to abate bonds either or that the finance committee would be making a report at the January meeting.
Abating bonds wasn't even on the radar, until this article came out in The Doings on January 13, 2011.
Surprisingly, on the morning of Monday, January 17, this appeared on the agenda: Finance Committee Report of Board Fiscal Policy 4:20.
Apparently, between Friday night and Monday morning, the finance committee met and decided to abate some bonds resulting in a tax reduction for all district homeowners. They hold weekend meetings? Who knew?
At the January meeting, board member Rick Rigley had to get his two cents in by lambasting The Doings stating, "The Doings failed to do their homework as the January 19 Board of Education agenda included a strategy to responsibly provide tax relief without recklessly placing the district in a position where it may need to cut programs or raise additional revenue via a referendum."
Really? Can you find that verbage anywhere on the January 19th agenda? You can't, because it is not there. The apples don't fall far from the trees in this district.
Giving money back to the taxpayers was suggested by board member Karen O'Halloran at the February 17, 2010 meeting when discussing fee based programs much to the disbelief of her fellow board members.
According to the board minutes: "Specifically he (Mirabile) asked whether her intent was to reduce the tax rate. Board member O'Halloran responded her intent would be to reduce the tax rate and return the money to the taxpayers."
"The School Board analyzes finances every year and reports to the community on an annual basis, Fredisdorf said. This year, the finance committee looked at providing tax relief by applying some of the district's fund balance to debt service."
Wow! This was never even mentioned at any board meeting until The Doings article brought it to the public's attention. And for that, we thank them!
That's what the superintendent gets for banging his drum and trying to promote his board candidates for re-election. It backfired! And we love it!
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Thanks for keeping us informed. This was very interesting!
It's a basic tenet of ethical journalism that quotes attributed directly to an individual be accurately stated. The quote attributed to Mr. Rigley in this posting is an affront to that fundamental of integrity.
Mr. Rigley did state, "the editors of the Doings did not do their homework, and demonstrated a dangerous level of irresponsibility in their conclusion that we should reduce our tax levy or spend down the District's funds.
And later, "As we will see in an agenda item later tonight...there is a point in the not too distant future where revenue could be outstripped by expense..."
He did not, however, make the statement attributed in the posting here -- nor anything close to it. The quotation on this blog is an utter fabrication -- as could easily be corroborated in a review of the video of the January Board meeting.
Cowboy Bob,
Thank you for your comments.
Unfortunately, we do not understand what you mean and would like some clarification.
Where do you see the words, "As we will see in an agenda item later tonight...there is a point in the not too distant future where revenue could be outstripped by expense..." on the District's board meeting highlights page (http://www.d107.org/media/Board/minutes-agendas/2010-2011/BoE_2011_01_19_highlights.pdf)? Frankly, we don't see these words there and that page is what we used when writing this post.
You also said, "He did not, however, make the statement attributed in the posting here -- nor anything close to it." What statement are you referring to?
We cannot find the link to watch the January 19 board meeting on the district website. Can you tell us where it is?
We always strive for honest journalism. You are accusing us of fabricating a quote by Mr. Rigley. We cannot find anywhere in the above blog post where Mr. Rigley's words were not accurately stated. Can you tell us what quote you are speaking of?
Thank you again for your comments and for supporting this blog.
Dear Cowboy (Rigley) Bob,
After attending tonight's board meeting, your comments have become crystal clear to us.
Tonight, Mr. Rigley said that even though he said what he said, he didn't mean it in the context he said it in.
Huh?
He then asked Erika to rewrite what he said, even though last month, he gave her a written copy of his actual speech.
Hmmm, it's good to know that the superintendent and board members read this blog so religiously!
We'll be waiting for your apology, Cowboy.
Oh, and we hope that when we are misquoted at board meetings, we will be afforded the same opportunity to have Erika re-write what we said as was done for Mr. Rigley tonight.
Also, since Mr. Rigley's original comments were in open forum, why was there dialogue between him and the other board members? According to board president Leandra Sedlack, the board is not in a position to respond to speakers during open forum.
Hmmm, guess different rules apply to different people.
I think Cowboy Bob needs to look up the word integrity. If you know what I mean.
Cowboy Bob,
I would like to ask you an additional question about Mr. Rigley’s comments. I would ask him at a Board meeting, but the members are not allowed to answer questions during open forum. Maybe you can ask Mr. Rigley and respond for him or have him answer this question? How could he lie and state that the Doings didn’t do their homework about the district’s strategy to responsibly provide tax relief without recklessly placing the district in a position where it may need to cut programs or raise additional revenue via a referendum? If I have the facts straight the Doings article came out on January 13th. Where is there any indication that the district was considering providing a tax relief strategy in any of the agenda announcements for the January 19th meeting? It wasn’t in the original agenda for the Board meeting on the 19th or in the agenda items listed for January at the December Board meeting. It only appeared on the agenda on the morning of the 17th. So unless the Doings are some kind of mind readers how could he state they didn’t do their homework? This is another example of the Superintendent and his puppets (oops, I mean school Board members) trying to manipulate the facts. He has Rigley read a statement that contains lies and was only written as a reply to the Doings article on the 13th. Do the puppets really think we are that stupid and don’t see that this action was brought to life because of the Doings article? The Superintendent also needs to remember it is illegal for him to campaign for anyone in the upcoming elections. We know that is why he had Rigley read this statement as well as having Lisa Houk and Beth Tegtmeier recommend the fees waiver for the upcoming year. I would also bet that he will have Rigley, Houk and Tegtmeier predominately featured in the upcoming school newsletter just as he did for the three incumbents before the last election.
Was there not a rejoinder to this whole brouhaha published in the Doings?? Seems to me they backed waaaaay off and gave Dr F and Dist 107 some great publicity right after this??
This blog claims to be a voice for all but those who support the administration become ridiculed.
You are correct – the Doings did publish positive information in recent issues. And D107 does do many positive things that should be put out there. Is it a coincidence that the articles appeared after the negative commentary? Absolutely not! Remember that April 5 is election day, and the number of articles and direct mail from the school always increases in election years. I’m sure that if you looked at the number of articles for the same time period last year you would see a stark difference. This blog continues to inform the public of information that never seems to make it to the newspaper.
Post a Comment