McHenry County Blog

A Columbus Day obituary announced the death of former Huntley School Board member Larry Snow. He died October 4 in his home.

A resident of Lake in the Hills, Snow entered the public consciousness when he discovered that the Huntley School officials were not being straight with voters over a tax increase referendum.

At his own expense, he mailed out a multi-page analysis of the tax hike proposal, which passed despite his opposition.

Then, he decided to run for the District 158 School Board, where he won a seat.

Snow was known for asking tough questions as he tried to bring accountability and transparency to District 158 affairs.

Snow spent considerable time and effort in Springfield figuring out how to rectify the false advertising contained in the tax hike referendum language he fought prior to his election.  He calculated would motivate various state legislators and did so, even when it resulted in political harm to his personal ambitions.

He negotiated the guts of the non-certified employee contract, which was accomplished without conflict.

When a Board vacancy occurred, Snow’s persuasive talents managed to convince his fellow board members (political adversaries, many votes were 6-1 or 5-2) to appoint his Political Action Committee Treasurer Tony Quagliano to the seat.  Quagliano later joined the Board majority and was named its Vice President.

Snow put on a full-court press to elect two allies, Aileen Seedorf and Linda Moore, during the next election.  Seedorf, a community activist who often spoke at school board meetings, was elected, while Moore lost by just two handfuls of votes. In the process School Board President Mike Skala lost to one of his running mates.  The running mate resigned about six months later and the Board appointed Skala to the vacancy.

In the only instance of which I am aware locally, the proposed teachers’ contract was made public before ratification by the school board and the teachers’ union.  [That seems quite important to me, since teacher salaries and benefits account for most of schools' budgets.]  Snow initiated that effort.

Snow was disappointed that enough members of the board reneged on the salary offer after reaching agreement that annual increases should be set at the level of inflation (increase in the CPL).  Instead, increases were set at 5%, plus the level of inflation, if my memory serves me correctly.

Two years later, Skala challenged Snow in a one-on-one race and defeated his re-election effort.  The campaign was as intense as one for state representative and the teachers union and their allies turned the election into a blood sport.  $8,500 was spent on Skala’s campaign.

After his loss, Snow wrote a book on what he thought was needed to improve education in the United States and articles for online “The Champion.”

One article in which put extensive effort involving the examination of scores of teacher contracts from the largest school districts in Illinois.  He sought to discover if teachers or taxpayers were paying the share teachers were statutorily required to pay. The results are summarized in the title of my article on his research:

39% of Illinois Teachers Pay Nothing for Pensions

He also looked at schools with poor test results and found out if teachers or taxpayers were making the Teacher Retirement System payments.  You can find it here.

Snow was a patient at Sherman Hospital this summer where he had an operation to relieve pressure in his head.

Upon release, his older sister Elizabeth Sniegoski came to stay with him.

He then re-wrote the introductory chapter of his book.  He was talking about one of his daughter’s father-in-law arranging to publish it online, but I do not know if that has been accomplished.  If he did, I am sure Snow would be pleased.

When I last had lunch with him at Colonial Cafe in Algonquin, he explained how he, as a very junior employee with Schering Plough he had come up with the suggestion of a new class drug, rather than trying to fit it into an existing class.

Going back farther in time, he told me of realizing the way he was being taught algebra in his Catholic boys school was not working.  He went to the Harvard Book Store and searched until he could find a book he could understand.  Snow went on to get a chemical engineering degree from Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Snow was a successful software salesman. although he detested my use of the word “salesman” to describe what I thought he explained he did.

He told me of some of his presentations for Green Hills Software, a position he resigned in order to have more flexibility to take his daughters to tennis matches around the country.

He was quite disappointed that he did not get to attend his daughter’s recent wedding.

He had three daughters–Stacy Peters, Trina Geatz and Kerry Snow–and a granddaughter named Caroline Peters.   Besides his sister, he has a brother, Vincent Snow, who survives him.

Once, I saw a card on display that one of his daughter ‘s wrote to him which said, “Dad, you were always there for me.”

He was so proud of their accomplishments.

Snow was 61 when he died.

This article is corrected and bumped up for visibility.

I misread the minutes of the Financial Advisory Committee meeting of August 2nd. It was not Huntley School District 158 Chief Financial Officer Mark Altmayer whom the minutes say advocated abolishing the financial Advisory Committee.

My apologies to him for the misidentification.

It was tax hike advocate Michael Andre who is reported to have thought there was no further need for a citizens advisory group on financial affairs.

Here’s what the second draft of minutes from the August 2nd meeting says about the “FAC Role”:

Discussion from both committees took place.

Mr. Quagliano asked for the FAC to provide their role at this time.

Mr. Andre conveyed the District has a CFO (Mr. Altmayer) in place, and that the FAC may not be needed.

Mr. Andre stated the four options remaining for the FAC:

1. work on various projects
2. hibernation until needed
3. dissolve
4. other

Mr. Quagliano shared the importance that SD 158 residents stay involved, and conveyed the importance of keeping the FAC in tact. He further stated the FAC should work together as a committee to help determine their role, and their direction.

Mr. Troy reiterated with Mr. Quagliano and concurred.

Mr. Gentry entered at 7:15 p.m.

Mrs. Moore exited at 7:40 p.m.

Mr. Skala reiterated and concurred; adding whatever issues the FAC wants to delve into, it is okay for the community to stay involved.

Recommendation: Finance Committee to determine 3-5 items they would like FAC to work on. FZC to decide if they want to remain a sub-committee of the Finance Committee or expand to a broader citizen’s advisory committee, and reporting back in the next month or so to the Finance Committee.

= = = = =
Attending the meeting besides School Board members Tony Quagliano, Kevin Gentry, Mike Skala, Aileen Seedorf and Paul Troy were citizens Joe Lyons, Michael Andre, Ronda Goldman, Michael Laird, Lucinda Nelson, David Roeder, Rich Seiler, Linda Moore and Angela Sorejian.

This citizens advisory committee was the launching pad for both Quagliano and Larry Snow’s school board candidacies.

With over 700 registered voters in attendance, electors at the Annual Town Meeting overwhelmingly refused to follow the script laid out by Ancel Glink partner Keri-Lyn Krafthefer.

There were so many people in attendance that the 700 pink ballots designed by Township Administrator Pam Fender ran out.

About ten people stood on the sidelines as a result of the slight miscalculation.

They were told if there were ever a close vote, their vote would count.

They were not happy campers.

But none of the votes were close and none were taken by paper ballot.

There were so many people that the meeting did not start until after 7:30.

The opponents to the Trustees’ position clearly outmaneuvered the proponents.

On the way in people in bright green (they look yellow to me, but I’m color blind) tee-shirts saying,

“NO MORE TAXES,”

handed out a one-page explanation of what the meeting was all about…from the opponents’ viewpoint, of course.

The Huntley Police, including its Chief were visible throughout the night and quite helpfully had flashing lights to slow down Harmony Road traffic as hundreds of cars left one by one after the meeting.

Most of the nine intricately worded resolutions written by the Trustee’s lawyer were ignored as it became obvious that opponents to the Township Trustees’ desire for new offices were not in control of the only form of direct democracy left in Illinois.

The test vote came when Jim

Kearns overwhelming was elected Moderator of the meeting.

My guess is that about 80% of the audience voted for him.

Next came a motion to do first what Ancel Glink put last on the agenda, a motion proposed by Township Road Commissioned Jack Freund to “unwind” (undo) the sale of the township hall to the Grafton Township Road District.

A motion was made to make the last first and it passed overwhelmingly without a paper ballot.

The desires of Township Road Commissioner Freund were explained by his attorney Pat Coen and after its combination with the sale of the Haligus Road property—the subject of three other resolutions—was split, that reversal of the past Supervisor John Rossi Board action was accomplished.

Six irrelevant resolutions that were intended to be considered first were then almost summarily disposed of. Among them were ones ratify the unlawful sale of the Town Hall to the Road District.

“Hot button issues should not rule the day,” Diane Ayers said.  “Maybe by leaving this at the end of the agenda some of the tempers will cool, so we can have a reasonable discussion.”  Ayers is a Democratic Party precinct committeeman.

Numerous attempts to slow down the meeting were made by those supporting the Trustees’ desires.

More and more mainly older residents left the meeting confident that their side was winning the day.

District 158 School Board members Don Drzal and Paul Troy, at different times, tried to slow down the meeting by requiring a paper ballot.

Neither succeeded.

“This sounds like the township meetings,” Don Glogovsky, a Sun City man who ran for township trustee, interjected.

“Let’s continue with the agenda and do away with all the minutia and let democracy prevail.”

The first Haligus Road property resolution would have ratified the unlawful purchase. It was voted down. There was no question as to the outcome, although one supporter of the Trustees wanted to delay resolution until the next meeting.

His suggestion was met with a chorus of ‘No’s.”

A third school board member, Aileen Seedorf addressed the motion:

“They’re trying to ratify what they did.” (If you want to do that, vote ‘Yes.’  If not, then, Vote ‘No.’”

The second Ancel Glink attorney at the meeting, Rob Bush, explained people who want to approve the purchase should vote in favor.

‘If you don’t want to take the deed, you should vote, ‘No.’”

The vote was not even close.

“Is this the way Christ would want it?” a man from the far end of the bleachers asked.

The next Haligus Road resolution would have the Trustees offer the property back to the Village of Lake in the Hills for the price the township paid, about $99,500. The motion carried with, it seemed, both sides’ support.

The final motion would have the Trustees sell the property if Lake in the Hills did not want to buy it back. The motion was amended to require that the sale would have to be for at least $99,400.

Crystal Lake City Councilman Jeff Thorsen, sitting among a stronghold of Trustees’ supporters, observed,

“I don’t see anything here that that makes (the motions) mutually exclusive.”

During discussion, one man said, “Any price that’s market value should be acceptable.”

The amendment was adopted requiring the $99,500 payment, which Peter Hoffman figured would be about $36,000 an acre.

The amended motion passed overwhelmingly.

Except for giving the Township Road Commissioner the right to sell some surplus property, that pretty much ended the meeting. It was after 9:30 and people were leaving in droves.

Afterward I asked each Trustee the same question:

“What now?”

Gerry McMahon, who had been most out front in his desire for the township to have new offices, said,

“I don’t know. (We) have to digest it first and then proceed with bankruptcy…maybe.”

Betty Zirk’s reply?

“Nothing.”

As I was approaching Rob LaPorta, a man was berating him, telling him he got $100 a meeting for (doing less than a stellar job).

“Who are you serving?”

he said in a loud voice, using a barn yard epitaph to LaPorta’s reply.

“Who is this Bozo?” LaPorta asked.

“We don’t do anything behind closed doors,” I heard LaPorta say.

Lake in the Hills Trustee Steve Harlfiner, who lost the role of Moderator to Kearns, approached the cluster, saying, “Good luck selling (the property).”

“Linda Moore wouldn’t be in office if you hadn’t bought that building,” a second man said.

“We went by the advice we were given,” LaPorta replied.

“We made mistakes,” Trustee Barb Murphy, standing nearby, conceded.

“If you hadn’t tried to get that three and a half million dollar building, Linda wouldn’t have been elected,” the second mean reiterated.

I asked Murphy what was next.

“We can unwind,” a position she was the first Trustee to suggest last November.

When I got to talk to the acknowledged leader of the Trustees, LaPorta told me,

“We’re going to follow what was completed tonight and get the township processes to run smoothly.”

As I was walking out the meeting with two folks I was taking home, I asked Fender if I could have a commemorative ballot.

I had already been given an extra large tee-shirt saying,

“No More Taxes,”

which folks will see me wearing this Thursday at the Crystal Lake TEA (Taxed Enough Already) at the corner of Route 14 and Main Street.

“That’s the most fraudulent meeting I even saw in my entire life,” the Township Administrator remarked.

The separation of powers suit that Township Supervisor Linda Moore filed against the four trustees is scheduled for arguments during the second week of May before the same judge, Michael Caldwell, who issued the ruling that stopped the new township hall dead in its tracks.

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.

Item	Precise No.	Quick Round, 000′s
1	$295,576	300
2	114,286	100
3	199,733	200
4	36,900	40
5	35,000	40
6	35,000	40
7	34,620	30
8	33,500	30
9	30,000	30
10	27,000	30
Above total	$841,615	840

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:

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.