McHenry County Blog

Huntley School District 158’s Superintendent John Burkey got about a $40,000 salary increase to come to Huntley in 2006.

In this fourth year as Superintendent his salary currently is $178,000.

He began in Huntley at $145,000.

After three years of raises, they added $33,000 to his starting salary.

When the board of education voted for a new contract for Burkey at January’s board meeting, they gave him an extra week’s vacation.  The vote was 5-1.  Kevin Gentry wasn’t present for the meeting and Aileen Seedorf voted “No.”

Unlike classroom teachers in Huntley, all of Burkey’s personal contributions toward his pension don’t come out of Burkey’s paycheck. Not a penny as far as I can tell.

Maybe this is not unusual.

There are districts where the taxpayers pay not only the required school district’s contribution to the Downstate Teachers Retirement System, but what started out as the employee share.

When you take the value for the benefits of insurance (well over $20,000) and add the personal contributions to Burkey’s pension that he normally should be paying for, the value of Burkey’s new contract next year is well past $210,000.

If you were pulling down a salary of about $105,000 in June, 2006, that’s not much of a financial sacrifice next year. And, Burkey had a free trip to China (not paid for by the district).

Board member Kim Skaja wrote on Huntley’s Neighbors,

“He started with a cut in pay and the pay was then restored as he gained experience.”

Let’s see,

• Year 1   2006 – 2007   $ 145,000
• Year 2   2007 – 2008   $155,000
• Year 3   2008 – 2009   $166,000
• Year 4   2009 – 2010   $ 178,000

Doesn’t look as if Supt. Burkey ever received a “cut in pay,” as Skaja says.

He received a large $40,000 increase in compensation upon getting his first Superintendency in Huntley.

I fail to see how that is “a cut in pay.”

Not in a small one.

Not in a medium sized one.

Burkey now has a three-year contract paying a minimum salary of $178,000 a year each year.

You might have had a teacher or two who told you to check your work before turning it in.

There are probably a few teachers in Huntley School District 158 who are either recoiling in dismay or laughing at how former teachers, now administrators in their district, have a different standard for themselves when they become administrators.

In this case, several parents, including Mrs. Sara DiFucci, seem far better at reading comprehension and mathematics than administrators who prepare and (are supposed to) read the documents given to the board and public.

In Thursday night’s board meeting, DiFucci pointed out a large error in special education material Supt. John Burkey submitted to the school board. It was in a document in which administrators added up their spending list for the Federal Stimulus ARRA IDEA funds.

There was a $295,576 addition error.

You can see the error on page 464 of 507 of the November board meeting packet.

If you scan and do a quick addition of the numbers on the first page of the report, say the first ten line items, you can see how they add up to much more than $800,000 (click to enlarge page 464).

Quick rounding is a way professionals and educators—even 5th graders in my son’s homework last year—look at numbers to see if there are any obvious errors.

Burkey’s board packet presented a spending total of $801,660.81 for 89 items in the initial request for Special Ed money from the Federal Stimulus Package.

The problem is that the first ten items on the two page list total more than $840,000.

A casual look of ten items lets you see there is an error.

Of course, Burkey probably doesn’t look at documents like this closely before they go to the board. That’s what staff are for.

Other administrators apparently didn’t bother either.

Later on in the meeting, board member Aileen Seedorf asked Controller Mark Altmayer if he knew of the large error.

Altmayer’s reply was interesting.

Without saying who was responsible, the Controller emphatically said it wasn’t his document, emphasizing he didn’t know about the error.

Sources within Huntley 158 have let it be known that multiple administrators knew of the error before Thursday night.

Is it possible, as top financial guy, Altmayer was left out of the loop and this wasn’t discussed at Burkey’s weekly cabinet meetings of which he’s part?

One might think that an expenditure as contentious as this would make that agenda.

To be fair to the new Special Ed (Special Services) Director Cheryl Kalkirtz, I have it on reasonably good authority the error was not of her making.

Interesting is no administrator was willing to raise his or her hand and say it was not Burkey’s mistake.

Burkey in the past has seemed proud of how he has a C.P.A. as Controller.

No comments about the C.P.A. test Altmayer passed Thursday night.

A fair question to ask is “What’s the point of having a C.P.A. as Controller if the district’s isn’t taking care that public documents with financial numbers in them are carefully reviewed?”

In any event, someone dropped the ball. In fact, the total for the proposed Special Education expenditures from the Federal Stimulus Package aren’t even in the ballpark.

In years past, Huntley’s board had Larry Snow and Tony Quagliano on it.

Both loved to review financial documents.

Snow, of course, lost to Mike Skala and Quagliano decided to retire.

There’s still a CPA on the board, Keven Gentry, but he apparently didn’t catch this mistake while reading the board packet. There are also a couple of M.B.A.’s on the board now. But, considering the District 158 administration dumped 507 pages into the board packet, there’s no reason they should have discovered the mistake.

The only board member who gave an indication of caring about the large error was Aileen Seedorf, who has been the one bird dogging on Special Education matters.

The six-member board majority expressed no concern at the mistake.

I will note, however, when state officials wanted a legislator not to find something, they smothered them in so much paper the odds of finding something that might be amiss were minuscule.

Burying people in paper is a tried and proven way to keep people from finding something.

Supt. Burkey didn’t so much as offer a superficial apology for the mistake. He didn’t say a word.

A $295,576 error would seem to me to be worth a mention.

Teachers help our children learn how errors should be admitted to when made.

It’s not as if anyone was expecting a Tiger Woods-like “I regret those transgressions with all of my heart” type of apology or offer of repentance.

An insincere “We regret the inconvenience this error may have caused anyone” that you might associate with a utility, bank or cable provider would have been in the something – anything category.

The example to teachers in the audience was when you make a large error admit to nothing and don’t say a word.

Special Ed director Kalkirtz apparently reports to Associate Supt. Terry Awrey.

Awrey, like all other administrators, sat silent, not volunteering a word lest it be thought he was at fault.

Showing teachers that neither he nor any of his top administrators are willing to admit to an error can hardly be considered leading by example.

It certainly won’t win a “We Set Good Examples” shiny apple award.

My guess is that all sorts of people set better examples of accountability than those unwilling to admit or apologize for this $300,000 mistake in public.

Say,

• kindergarten teachers
• first grade teachers
• second grade teachers
• third grade teachers
• fourth grade teachers
• fifth grade teachers
• sixth grade teachers
• any special ed teachers
• any certified special ed support people

or, well, you get the idea.

Some administrator(s) apparently has (have) not learned to check work before turning it in. Or to take responsibility for mistakes.

Or proof read the reading assignment given to the board and public.

Educators (and President Barack Obama) talk of teachable moments.

The Special Education revelation could have been one of those.

Burkey could have apologized for his staff’s mistake.

He didn’t.

He could have asked his staff in public to be more careful in the future, to double check their work before turning it in.

It gives me something other administrators can use as “how-not-to” example.

Perhaps the school board and the public will allow the “whatever” approach to an almost $300,000 error.

Even my son has learned there are consequences to that approach.

My guess is that teachers have set higher standards for students in Huntley’s classrooms.

Yesterday, the first half of a report was published on what happened on the special ed front at the parents advisory committee meeting and the subsequent school board meeting. What follows, concludes that report.

Board member Aileen Seedorf questioned a disbursement to Scholastic Inc. for over fifty thousand dollars in the financial records. Scholastic provides Read 180.

Controller Mark Altmayer didn’t give it up and said he didn’t know.

With some persistence, other administrators fessed up and the cat was out of the bag.

Finally, Supt. Burkey confessed, saying 60 licenses had been purchased.

Curriculum director Mary Olsen said all of these licenses were to be used only for regular education students.

Tough to figure out how no licenses had been purchased a week earlier but we’ll wait for the response to the Freedom of Information request. And, if it’s unsatisfactory, I’ll file it again after January 1st when there will be actual penalties for those responding falsely.

One could still wonder why the Read 180 purchases were in a special ed classroom unpacked by a special ed student and given to a special ed student to take home to his parents.

Apparently at least one special ed student had been using the Read 180 program when none had been purchased for their use.

What the special ed parents asked for at the board meeting was

• Being able to make a presentation to the board on caseload staffing
• Parent participation on the committee coming up with revised ARRA funds spending recommendations

Seedorf tried to get the board and Burkey to agree to schedule a presentation by the parents at the next committee of the whole meeting.

Burkey and the board majority turned cold shoulders to both suggestions.

How unreasonable are such requests, considering how the Special Ed Moms have been treated this fall?

They are very reasonable.

In order to get the superintendent and 158 administrators to listen one apparently has to go door-to-door passing out flyers.

The Daily Herald pointed out how Burkey had “stone ears” in its article and how the parents distributed flyers door-to-door in order to stop this vote and get a revised spending list.

The Northwest Herald observed of the newest revision of how District 158 intends to spend the $1.6 million (which happened after the flyers hit door knobs):

“And the initiative for additional staff development –such as the opportunity to be trained in disability awareness –increased to $450,000 total.”

Parents told the board there had been other items purchased besides Read 180 and there was an internal memo indicating such.

As you might expect, administrators asked for a copy of their own memo, rather than offer to provide the memo to the board with an explanation.

Perhaps the memo has to surface publicly before its existence is confirmed by the administration.

Sort of like how the Read 180 licenses and materials weren’t purchased this year until a special ed parent brought the materials to a board meeting for show and tell.

District 158 is among the model local governments in revealing what will be discussed at their meetings. (In comparison, Crystal Lake reveals nothing more than its agenda and, then, not on a convenient basis.)

But with how it obtained the Read 180 licenses, which it apparently wants to finance with Federal stimulus money and which educational value is clearly experimental for special ed kids, “transparency” apparently means,

“Show us evidence of what you suspect and we’ll admit that’s what it is.”

Thank goodness for observant parents.

And others.

This is the fourth installment of the discussion last Thursday night at the Huntley School District 158 board meeting on spending Federal stimulus money under the IDEA grant program. Here are links to the prior stories: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

When we left off, newly-elected member Don Drzal was trying to find out what the special ed administrators would spend money now destined for Read 180, if the hoard decided to cut it back to a pilot program.

Assistant Special Education Director Karen Alward seemed to have already provided the answer in an interchange with board member Kevin Gentry.

Gentry was trying to find out how the special ed administrators had gotten down to the $800,000 in first year money that is available.

“We really didn’t have to say, ‘No,” to anything,” Alward told the board. (Alward is the one looking at the camera in this only shot that got all four special ed administrators’ faces.)

Later it was explained that some suggestions, like providing gift cards to students for accomplishing something, were made that just were not legal under the guidelines.

Board member Aileen Seedorf, who seems to be the patron saint of the Special Ed Moms waiting until last.

“I believe the parents would have expected something in this year,” she said.

“Is that correct?”

“Yes, “The Moms answered.

Seedorf asked about the classroom furniture. Board President Shawn Green had a similar concern.

Kevin Gentry took offense at what he thought was a Seedorf’s accusation that regular students were treated better than special ed students.

“If you’re right, we need to do something about it.”

Green agreed: “If you have specific concerns they need to be addressed?”

Seedorf repeated several times that the committee she has proposed could have investigated that line of though, but the board majority had decided not to allow it.

She burrowed in on Read 180 and took a jab at one of her fellow board members.

“I’m not interested in running for senate.”

“I’m not interested in running for senate either,” Gentry replied.

“Good for you,” Seedorf countered.

Seedorf wanted to know if the Read 180 pilot program “could be pared down to 15-20.

“How many do you need to buy to do a small study before you drop big bucks on this?”

Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz replied that they could also be used as part of an RIT initiative, that is, with at risk kids.

“Let’s get 30 licenses and see how the kids do,” board member Paul Troy added. He suggested that would be better than “buying 360 license today.”

“We need to give direction to the administration and move forward,” long-time board member Mike Skala said.

“We can’t just buy 360 licenses and go forward not caring whether they work or not,” Troy interjected.

“If the administration wants to change it and come back to us, I’m fine with that…but not the opposite,” Skala replied.

The board decided to ask for more detail on the Read 180 line item.

“We all trust you. You’re all professionals,” veteran board member Kim Skaja added.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =
Read the whole series:

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 1

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 2

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 3

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 4

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 5

We would like to think government employees wouldn’t take money away from special ed children and use it for regular education.

Especially when money is specifically designated for special ed use.

Even if the Federal law allows such a diversion (which it does—half can be diverted).

We’d also like to think elected officials wouldn’t allow such an abuse when brought to their attention.

Then there’s what is going on in Huntley District 158.

I wonder if it would be if school administrators or board members have a special needs child.

Board member Aileen Seedorf seems to understand the long standing law which says the district is required to provide an appropriate education to every child. At the July 14th town hall-style meeting, School Board member Shawn Green did express what I took to be sincere concern about how the Federal stimulus money on special education would be spent.

I have written about how the administrators have proposed how to spend the Federal Stimulus funds.

A lot of the money is still being recommended to expand a reading program used in regular ed which the special ed parents don’t want.

The moms and dads don’t want it because there is no vendor-independent research that shows it works with special ed children.

The attention spans required for the programmed instruction are about 20 to 30 minutes. That’s a long time for challenged kids.

It seems likely that the massive expenditure will be redeployed into regular student use when it becomes obvious that the program doesn’t provide much benefit tospecial ed students.

The special ed parents want programs that will work for their children.

From what I heard at the July 14th town hall-style meeting with administrators and school board members, those parents would give those decision-makers the old grade of “needs improvement.”

It would take quite a reporter to capture their disillusionment.  I surely am not skilled enough to convey it.

But, it is clear to me that administrators need to listen to the parents of special education children and not spend a huge sum on a reading program the parents don’t want and for which the parents can find no credible research that says will work.

I remember the education I received from a District 300 mother back in the 1970’s when special education laws were being crafted.  I remember her every time I drive past her Huntley Road home on the way to Spring Hill Mall.  She said to finance her son’s education at Summit School, they had subdivided their property and would sell of the lots.

Unfortunately, most of the parents with special ed kids in Huntley School District 158 don’t have similar resources.  If the Huntley School Board doesn’t provide for their children’s education, ones who might be able to cope in society will just “slip through the cracks,” as the trite cliche says.

It’s really much more serious than that.

Ask a parent.

In mid-May, the Huntley School Board was approached by some disappointed and frustrated parents.

At both the Finance and the board meeting, the moms of kids with special needs felt empowered to speak about the education their kids are or are NOT getting.

You see, two key special education employees jumped ship.

The parents seemed to think there no longer was light at the end of the tunnel.
How Federal economic stimulus money will be spent is at stake, too.

The Huntley School District is getting $1.5 million. The money has to be spent over a two year period.

A loophole, however, allows half of it to be drained to other than new or additional special education uses.

The administration wants to spend a rather large amount of money on a reading software that they have not piloted or know if it will be effective with special ed students.

The reading software is being used for regular students now. This makes it look like the software the district will be buying is software that would normally be bought this year to expand its use with more regular ed students.

The reasoning for diverting the money is that Federal mandates for so many years have been unfunded. Maybe “underfunded” would be a better word.

During comments the parents made a lot of interesting points. One became emotional at the board meeting and pretty much ignored Board President Shawn Green’s attempt to shut her down after a certain amount of time.

Board member Aileen Seedorf was aggressive in the discussion, even pulling out a hat and put ting it on mid-discussion, using it as a prop to make a point.

Seedorf pushed for a standing Special Ed Board committee, but the the board majority would not allow it.

In any event, signatures are being sought on the following petition:

119 had signed when I looked at it mid-day Thursday.

You need a quorum for a board meeting.

Right now the Huntley school board has only one board member as a carryover for its Finance Committee.

That would be Kevin Gentry.

Hard to have a quorum with one committee member.

Finance Committee members Tony Quagliano and Larry Snow are no longer on the board.

Replacement members to the Finance Committee have not yet been appointed and approved by the Board. Board approval is required by the board’s policy. Such a vote of approval can only occur at a scheduled board meeting and that hasn’t happened yet.

Will the new board members pretend it doesn’t matter if the new board follows board policy or the Open Meetings Act?

Board member Aileen Seedorf alerted the board to a similar situation at the last Committee of the Whole meeting.

She pointed out the Legislative Committee could not convene because Snow, the chairman, and Quagliano were no longer on that committee. The board agreed to not officially have the Legislative Committee that evening.

For those at home hoping to follow your school district’s finances, well, you can’t. At least not for now. Neither the Building nor Finance Committee board packets are posted online.

Shawn Green was elected Board President again, but he missed his first Committee of the Whole meeting.

Last night a contract negotiation meeting was held between Huntley’s teachers union and the negotiating committee for the Board. Absent was the administration. Apparently the Superintendent, Controller and Human Resources Director all had other more important things to do.

Board President Shawn Green was very vocal that the union should discuss their proposals in public.

Good for him!

Illinois should follow Florida’s example and conduct all union negotiations in public.

Apparently the union wants to bring its proposal for early retirement benefits to the board in secret session.

If the teachers union’s proposal has merit, then why wouldn’t the teachers want to present it in public?

Is the answer a bit obvious?

The agreement between the Board and union says that on consensus the proposal will be brought to the board.

Has there been a consensus?

The agreement also calls for consideration of an alternate salary schedule plan. (For information about past salary hikes, go here.)

With what they won after their strike, why would the Huntley Education Association want to change anything in the salary schedule?

The teachers obviously want their retirement benefits sweetened, but they don’t seem to want to talk about the current really sweet deal they have on automatic salary increases.

The union is refusing to talk about changing salary schedule.

The current longevity step increase is 3 1/2%–quite high when compared to other schools. That means starting salaries for teachers might have to be lower than surrounding districts to compensate for the later huge automatic step increases.

Of course, starting salaries are easier for reporters to understand than step increases.

And how much sense does it make to pay extra money for double masters’ degrees?

That’s in the salary schedule.

Unless increased performance can be linked to a second master’s degree, does it make sense to pay extra for it?

Just asking.

= = = = =
The photo of the teachers in HEA shirts was taken the night they confronted the board.

I wrote about how a measure of inflation, a cost of living index in the form of the Consumer Price Index, has been only 1.1% for the last 12 months.

In that article Friday, I suggested tax district officials would be saying,

So would have Huntley School District 158 teachers had not three school board members more friendly to the teachers than the taxpayers made a last minute change in the salary offer.

When District 158 made its “Last, Best and Final” Offer to the Huntley’s teachers union, the salary offer was for indexing the 2nd and 3rd year using the Consumer Price Index.

Specifically the increase would be the CPI, plus 0.65%.

Chief Negotiator Larry Snow had full support of the Board for this.

The Board negotiating committee was six members–

Snow, Aileen Seedorf, Board President Shawn Green, plus the two C.P.A.’s, Tony Quagliano and Kevin Gentry, and Kim Skaja, who had voted for huge increases for the teachers in past contracts.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Snow and Seedorf were the backbone of the “financially responsible” part of this Board.

Normally it would take a 4-2 vote to reverse a six board member decision.

I said, “normally.”

Because Board President Sean Green showed up for only five hours or so during the last 150 hours of contract negotiations, Green was “Absent” literally and for all practical purposes.

This made it possible for a 3-2 vote to get the CPI index removed from the Board’s final negotiating position.

It was a given that Kim Skaja would go along with most anything that favored the teachers’ union.

So when Quagliano insisted on removing the CPI and going to fixed percentages for years two and three, and sidekick Gentry agreed, the die was cast.

When the two Certified Public Accountant’s caved, Skaja’s quickly agreed and the concession was made.

Caving in will turn out to be financially costly.

How bad?

The fixed percent raises were 5.25% for most teachers.

If you are optimistic about December’s CPI number then the total for the year may be 1.1%.

That would have meant the Board’s formula would have generated 1.75% raises. But there was a floor of 2% in the language.

So, there’s basically a difference of 3 and a quarter percentage points.

Under what the “Last, Best and Final” offer, next year’s raise would have turned out to be 2%. More than what it appears the cost of living will increase, but not the 5.25% Quagliano, Gentry and Skaja inserted at the last moment.

This translates into about $1 million a year in extra concessions than what was in the “Last, Best and Final” offer.

Ouch.

In simple terms, to balance the budget next year this means a million dollars of other spending (for additional class room teachers, for example) can’t happen.

Not just for one twelve month period, but again and again as the extra million dollars becomes a baseline for extra teacher salary expense year after year.

Word is that Huntley District 158 wants to hire a Certified Public Accountant for its next a chief financial officer.

Protecting the interests of taxpayers is not automatic just because one has passed that exam. Think Arthur Anderson and Enron for an extreme example of that.

The auditor who got the District 158’s audit numbers wrong in 2007 was a C.P.A..

The previous auditor was a C.P.A. and he got the numbers wrong in previous years as well.

Quagliano’s, Gentry’s and Skaja’s cave in, in this instance, will cause an automatic financial cave in for next year’s budget and the one after that.

Making this concession didn’t even prevent a strike.

The CPI is not in formula and wasn’t in the last weekend’s proposals to the HEA and they called the strike anyway.

That tells you how little good the C.P.A.s’ concession actually did at the time.

It wasn’t used to “make a deal;” it was a giveaway.

Both Snow and Seedorf were outvoted in caucus.

The “Last Best and Final” offer made sense as a financial structure.

Maybe if Green had bothered to show up he could have made it a 3-3 vote and the original proposal would be in the contract.

= = = = =
Huntley School District 158 Board members Larry Snow and Aileen Seedorf are seen top right. To the left and slightly below is School Board President Shawn Green. Below right is Kim Skaja. Below left are Kevin Gentry and Tony Quagliano. The picketers were found outside the western entrance to the Red Barn Road campus on the first day of the Huntley Education Association’s strike.

I wrote about how a measure of inflation, a cost of living index in the form of the Consumer Price Index, has been only 1.1% for the last 12 months.

In that article Friday, I suggested tax district officials would be saying,

So would have Huntley School District 158 teachers had not three school board members more friendly to the teachers than the taxpayers made a last minute change in the salary offer.

When District 158 made its “Last, Best and Final” Offer to the Huntley’s teachers union, the salary offer was for indexing the 2nd and 3rd year using the Consumer Price Index.

Specifically the increase would be the CPI, plus 0.65%.

Chief Negotiator Larry Snow had full support of the Board for this.

The Board negotiating committee was six members–

Snow, Aileen Seedorf, Board President Shawn Green, plus the two C.P.A.’s, Tony Quagliano and Kevin Gentry, and Kim Skaja, who had voted for huge increases for the teachers in past contracts.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Snow and Seedorf were the backbone of the “financially responsible” part of this Board.

Normally it would take a 4-2 vote to reverse a six board member decision.

I said, “normally.”

Because Board President Sean Green showed up for only five hours or so during the last 150 hours of contract negotiations, Green was “Absent” literally and for all practical purposes.

This made it possible for a 3-2 vote to get the CPI index removed from the Board’s final negotiating position.

It was a given that Kim Skaja would go along with most anything that favored the teachers’ union.

So when Quagliano insisted on removing the CPI and going to fixed percentages for years two and three, and sidekick Gentry agreed, the die was cast.

When the two Certified Public Accountant’s caved, Skaja’s quickly agreed and the concession was made.

Caving in will turn out to be financially costly.

How bad?

The fixed percent raises were 5.25% for most teachers.

If you are optimistic about December’s CPI number then the total for the year may be 1.1%.

That would have meant the Board’s formula would have generated 1.75% raises. But there was a floor of 2% in the language.

So, there’s basically a difference of 3 and a quarter percentage points.

Under what the “Last, Best and Final” offer, next year’s raise would have turned out to be 2%. More than what it appears the cost of living will increase, but not the 5.25% Quagliano, Gentry and Skaja inserted at the last moment.

This translates into about $1 million a year in extra concessions than what was in the “Last, Best and Final” offer.

Ouch.

In simple terms, to balance the budget next year this means a million dollars of other spending (for additional class room teachers, for example) can’t happen.

Not just for one twelve month period, but again and again as the extra million dollars becomes a baseline for extra teacher salary expense year after year.

Word is that Huntley District 158 wants to hire a Certified Public Accountant for its next a chief financial officer.

Protecting the interests of taxpayers is not automatic just because one has passed that exam. Think Arthur Anderson and Enron for an extreme example of that.

The auditor who got the District 158’s audit numbers wrong in 2007 was a C.P.A..

The previous auditor was a C.P.A. and he got the numbers wrong in previous years as well.

Quagliano’s, Gentry’s and Skaja’s cave in, in this instance, will cause an automatic financial cave in for next year’s budget and the one after that.

Making this concession didn’t even prevent a strike.

The CPI is not in formula and wasn’t in the last weekend’s proposals to the HEA and they called the strike anyway.

That tells you how little good the C.P.A.s’ concession actually did at the time.

It wasn’t used to “make a deal;” it was a giveaway.

Both Snow and Seedorf were outvoted in caucus.

The “Last Best and Final” offer made sense as a financial structure.

Maybe if Green had bothered to show up he could have made it a 3-3 vote and the original proposal would be in the contract.

= = = = =
Huntley School District 158 Board members Larry Snow and Aileen Seedorf are seen top right. To the left and slightly below is School Board President Shawn Green. Below right is Kim Skaja. Below left are Kevin Gentry and Tony Quagliano. The picketers were found outside the western entrance to the Red Barn Road campus on the first day of the Huntley Education Association’s strike.

Compliance with Huntley School Board policies is apparently for students, not Huntley’s fiscal administrators.

School Board member Larry Snow along with board member Aileen Seedorf got a board policy (4:15) put on the books that says financial irregularities have to be reported to the board of education and to the superintendent.

It was obvious at last Thursday’s Board meeting that compliance with that mandate remains but a theoretical concept.

Not something actually practiced.

Mandatory disclosure missing even when written into board policy is obviously not being practiced four years after the scandalously referendum tax increase that the media labeled a deception.

Hardly progress if you ask me.

Superintendent John Burkey has been on the job three years. Obviously, the fiscal aspect of his supervision needs improvement.

And, not telling the board of a serious lapse in internal controls…how does one explain that.

Did the district’s outside auditor voluntarily disclose how he found a lapse in internal controls at the beginning of his presentation?

No.

In fact he made no presentation. Outside auditor Paul Thurman of the firm Evans, Marshall & Pease, P.C., simply said he didn’t have anything to say and immediately opened it up to questions.

The lapse in internal controls that had about $150,000 extra erroneously sent to the State (in July alone) wasn’t mentioned until Larry Snow started asking questions about internal controls in the fiscal office.

The written report the auditor gave the board made had no mention whatsoever about internal controls.

It was only after Snow had asked very precisely worded questions exposing errors in the audit report that Snow asked about what he found about “internal controls.”
At this point, the auditor said a future letter, as yet unwritten, would show a lapse in internal controls resulting in about a couple hundred thousand dollars being sent to the State as an overpayment error.

Whether the auditor would have routinely disclosed this to the board, as he said he was going to, is anyone’s guess.

It was apparent he didn’t disclose it before being questioned by the board Thursday night. It is certainly less likely that someone would ask a question, if nothing was volunteered about internal controls.

Four years after a deceptive referendum, you might think the board majority was actually going to start the practice of having the fiscal office and superintendent actually start telling the entire board of education about specific lapses in internal controls.

Guess not.

About $110,000 was spent under a guise of a forensic audit that was selectively unforensic.

Part 2 tomorrow.