"Hand over the money now, and no
programs get hurt!"
Is this the message from our school board, or a street thug? It's getting harder to tell every year. One thing is certain, the D-50 school board continues to rely on the threat of canceling popular programs to coerce residents into supporting a tax increase.
These programs need not be at risk if the board would simply stand up to the special interest groups pulling their strings.
On September 9th, 2004, CRAFT members Doug Dodson and Jim Peschke attended a "Referendum Discussion" board meeting. We would like to share some of the information discussed at this meeting.
The first item on their strategic goals list is the "Creation and implementation of a public relations plan". Is this where a public school should put its energy?!? The very last strategic goal was to have D-50 revenues balance expenditures. Good idea, but as we'll see, their approach leaves much to be desired.
The presentation detailed budget cuts enacted over the past two years. The list included increased fees (which is NOT a budget reduction), some staffing cuts and some extracurricular activity program/personnel cuts. The board claimed this amounted to $1.2 million in cuts over the past two years. Nobody could explain why D-50 would be running out of money after cutting $1.2 million from the budget.
Conspicuously absent from the list of cuts was any hint of concessions from the teachers. They mentioned the administrator wage freezes but failed to mention the huge increase in administrator sick leave allotment.
The board listed all of the ways they'll spend referendum money if the referendum passes. The list contained the usual staffing increases and sports program reinstatements.
One of the more interesting items was $100,000 to make the District "9-1-1 compliant". The board explained this as necessary because District telephones require dialing of a 4th digit in order to reach 911. Has anybody thought of putting stickers on the phones?
Not surprisingly, No Child Left Behind was listed as an expense. One audience member suggested opting out to save the $75,000. Assistant Superintendent Sue Smith noted that opting out of NCLB would result in a loss of $221,000 of Title 1 grants. Suddenly, the horrors of NCLB didn't seem to concern anyone.
The catastrophe awaiting Harvard in the event of a defeat would be phased in over three years, giving the board plenty of time to keep trying to raise taxes. The first year (2005-2006) cuts consisted almost entirely of extracurricular programs. Twelve program eliminations, increased fees, and changes to the buildings trade program sounds like quite a lot.
Projected budget savings: $118,099 Ð THE COST OF A SINGLE ADMINISTRATOR!
It certainly seemed like the list was designed to cut as many programs as possible while saving the minimum amount of money. Perhaps they should run a referendum asking the public whether they'd like to see all of these programs cut, or lose a single administrator.
The second year contained a similar list of cuts, nine programs and three staffing changes.
Projected budget savings: $50,000 Ð THE COST OF A SINGLE TEACHER!
Several residents inquired as to the possibility of volunteers for coaching and/or private funding donations. The board became quite defensive during this discussion, insisting that the District lawyers and insurers took exception with widespread use of volunteers.
Frankly, it didn't even seem like the board members believed what they were telling the audience. Board member Mark Stricker raised liability issues and concerns that allowing private groups to fund programs would amount to supporting a special interest group. Jim Peschke responded by suggesting D-50 pay volunteers one dollar so they would no longer legally be volunteers. This suggestion was met with skepticism but little explanation.
The board's arguments are complete nonsense! School districts all over Illinois routinely employ volunteer coaches and accept private donations to support programs.
What the board failed to mention is that under the terms of the teachers' contract, the Harvard Education Association (HEA) can prevent D-50 from employing volunteer coaches and extracurricular staff.
Naturally, the HEA fears the public outcry over an attempt to block volunteer help. Our school board seems more than happy to hide the HEA's interests behind some story about insurance and lawyers. Maybe its time to eliminate all stipends and put an end to this problem!
It seems ironic that most of Harvard does not want to pay more taxes, yet the school board insists on trying to force the issue. At the same time, residents who wish to contribute time and money are turned away.
Business manager Donna Joyce commenting from her experience with Round Lake schools said that Harvard D-50 was a long way from being taken over by the State. Board member Bill O'Malley said that improvements in Round Lake schools since the State takeover have not increased property values. (Board members who soon realized the sacrilege of O'Malley's comment rushed to assure everybody that expensive schools always improve property values.)
So how can we save hundreds of thousands of dollars without losing programs? Check out the new teachers' contract, one of the only areas not threatened with budget cuts.