McHenry County Blog

I have cited Huntley School District 158 as a model of transparency. I did so most recently for all to see at a Crystal Lake City Council meeting when I was perturbed that I could not find the council packet on the internet on the city’s brand-new web site.

I thought I got a favorable response, but last weekend I went looking for the information that the council folks had already received and there was nothing to be found.

Crysal Lake City Council

Asking City Manager Gary Mayerhofer about when it might happen, I was told that staff was ready, but waiting for direction from the council. Based on that representation, I didn’t ask again during the public comment section. If by the next meeting I attend it is not up, I shall, as you would expect, make mention of it again.

In any event, the Huntley School District was the web site I pointed to as what I hoped Crystal Lake would emulate.

But outside of the board packet’s posting, the Huntley School District is no model of transparency, even though outgoing School Board President Shawn Green represented as such.

Why would I say that?

While McHenry County government has been known to reply to a Freedom of Information request in less than 24 hours, the Huntley School District tends to take the pretty much the maximum amount of time allowed by law.

And, in the instance of my search for anyone employed by District 158 with a Special Education Director qualification, as defined by the Illinois State Board of Education, the term “dragging of the heels” is too mild to use.

On Monday, February 8th, I asked for the following:

“One document for each person having a special education director endorsement on their administrator’s certificate, as verified on the State Board of Education web site.”

The same day, FOI Officer Lori Woods replied,

“Are you requesting a copy of their certificate?

“If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.”

My reply:

“I really don’t care if it the certificate or something referring to the certificate. “

Woods:

“Okay, thanks.  I’ll get working on that ASAP for you.”

My reply:

“The basic question is whether anyone in the district has a certification to be a special ed director.

“I can’t find one.”

On Friday, February 12th, I received this reply from Woods:

“The response to your FOIA regarding documentation of Special Education Director endorsement is attached.

“If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.”

That certainly is within the five-workday returned turnaround time, but consider the answer from Human Resources Director Lauren Smith that was attached:

The parsed word response of Huntley Human Services Director Lauren Smith. Note that it took her only nine minutes to formulate her answer. Click to enlarge.

Huntley School District Human Relations Director Lauren Smith

“I am not clear how to move forward on this request. Based solely on the question, I cannot provide a document for all persons with an endorsement as a special education director.”

Smith’s parsing of my words reminds me of President Bill Clinton’s:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Being the persistent type, I filed a new Freedom of Information request on Friday, February 12th, saying,

“It seems to me that my Special Ed certification request was pretty clear, clear enough to ask the IL AG’s office in an appeal and get a letter sent to District 158 the way one was recently sent to Grafton Township officials.  Instead, for a very brief time (I do not promise to wait 5 days, just to delay until the thought of an appeal enters my head again), let me give you another chance with the re-wording of the question you see below:

“I request all documentation provided by the Regional Superintendents Office or State Board of Education that evidences each district employee who holds or has held a Special Education Director endorsement during the 2009 – 2010 fiscal year, including any employee who was employed by the district in FY 2009 – 2010, and any certificate or copy thereof of in possession of the district that evidences the referenced employees’ holding or having held the referenced endorsement.

“A simple ‘We have no record of any such evidence that a Special Ed Director Endorsement has been held by any of our employees during Fiscal Year 2009-2010′ will suffice, if that is the situation.” (Emphasis added.)

Seven days later, I received this reply:

“The response to your FOIA for Special Education Director endorsement is attached.

“If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.”

Now, Human Resources Director Smith has discovered,

It took twelve days to get this answer. Click to enlarge.

Very interrresssting.

“Upon review of certified staff members, including administrators, there is not an employee as of this date with a Director of Special Education endorsement.”

Ver-r-r-r-y in-ter-r-r-r-r-es-s-s-t-ing, as the Laugh-In Nazi would say.

Not that I think Green had any knowledge of the games his staff was playing, but I would point out this answer was received the day after Green praised the district’s transparency.

It was not received before I got fed up at not having receiving a timely answer to my question of February 8th, though.

I would suggest the kiddie games evident above are unworthy of a local government aspiring to be known as a “model of transparency.”

= = = = =

The 800 number of the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access folks is 877-299-3642, by the way.  Complaints may be filed by email.  The email address is PublicAccess@AtG.State.IL.US.

Shawn Green is president of Huntley School Board 158.

In that position, he is the one to whom appeals of Freedom of Information request are directed.

And, that’s what I did.

A story yesterday told of my effort to spring loss a couple of memos about Read 1 80.

Last night I got a call from Green saying that he had approved the release of what I was looking for, assuming that it could be found among the large number of documents in the shared computer files that popped up when “Read 180” was used as search words.

That’s progress.

I’ve been filing Freedom of Information requests with local, state and federal government entities for a couple of decades.

I have never received a reply such as the one I just got from Huntley School District 158.

I had submitted my second request for memos relating to the two reading programs which Special Ed Moms don’t think will of much help to their children, but could be useful to kids in the regular education program.

The first, contained within a multi-subject request, didn’t catch the attention of District 158 enough to even be mentioned in the reply.

Being more patient than most people give me credit for—hey, what choice does someone dealing with government have?—I filed a second FOI request asking for the same memos.

Now, I have received the following reply:

“We are unable to comply with your request for ‘memos previously requested concerning Real 180 and System 44′ as the request is too vague.  Further information is needed (dates of memos, name(s) of person(s) to whom and from whom the memo is address, pertinent information contained in the memorandum, etc.) in order to comply with your request.“

If almost sounds as if I must have a copy of the memos before I can get a copy of the memos.

I have appeal that denial to School Board President Shawn Green. In my appeal, I wrote,

“It is my belief that there are two such memos, which it seems to me could be found by an FOI officer by sending my request to those who have been involved in the purchase of these programs. Or, if you have a centralized computer records system, just searching it using those two identifiers as search items.

“If your staff cannot find these memos or, if you deny my appeal, I shall refile my request after January 1st and see how the newly amended law works.”

Starting in the new year, disputes can be referred to the Illinois Attorney General for resolution.

Anyone able to help me make that request more specific than the one that has so far been denied, please email me at the address at the upper left of McHenry County Blog.

The Huntley School District 158 Board room was packed Thursday at 7 PM.

The only two empty seats were that of Board President Shawn Green and board member Kim Skaja. Skaja showed up after missing the academic spotlight and almost all of the parents’ public comments.  Green was absent, having told me that he would participate by phone if the special education agenda item were to be considered.

The parents’ advisory committee meeting on special ed had started at 6. It received record attendance. (Seen above are some of those who attended the July 14th meeting of the same committee.)

Many special ed teachers were in attendance.

At issue were staffing recommendations that has caseloads close to the legal maximum limit, for example, for speech pathologists in five schools.

The plan proposed by the administration for formal adoption has the burden being placed on individual teachers to prove they have too large of a caseload before adequate staffing is considered to meet the needs of the children.

“Prove it! with you doing all of the work” is apparently Human Resources Chief Lauren Smith’s new idea of working together and “collaborating” with the teachers.

The first item discussed by Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz was her suggestion to not have a December 10th parents advisory committee meeting.

She asked for a show of hands of those favoring not having the meeting.

The only hands raised were the administrators’.

When then asked how many wanted to have the meeting, a roomful of hands went up.

The attempt to gain approval to cancel the meeting at which the Federal stimulus ARRA IDEA spending would be discussed with parents failed. Apparently, their kids education was considered more important than Christmas parties.

One parent in 158, who is a special ed teacher in another district, made this point about the reading programs proposed to be financed with Federal funds:

“What are we doing to make sure it’s being implemented properly?”

When Kalkirtz seemed to try to brush off the point, wanting to move onto a different topic, a Special Ed Mom from the back of the room spoke up:

“I don’t think you heard what she was saying!”

It was fairly obvious from comments made by some of the teachers that this may have been the only time all of these teachers were in a room and asked or allowed to voice their opinions and ask questions about how the $1.6 million dollars should be spent.

It certainly did not appear that administrators had asked the teachers for their input on the revised list of expenditures.

Strange that teachers may have to attend public meetings if they want to “collaborate” with administrators on a group basis. Wouldn’t you think that would be included in the union contract?

Parents learned that, contrary to what Supt. John Burkey said at the previous board meeting, 60 Read 180 licenses had already been purchased for Heineman school. (When Burkey challenged a Special Ed Mom to file a Freedom of Information request on the topic the Thursday before last, I did. I’ll let you know when I get the response.)

The Moms knew this because, apparently as part of class time, a special ed student was assigned to unpack the boxes which were stacked up in a special ed room.

In addition, a special ed student received the Read 180 materials to take home so the parents could see what was going to be used for that student.

More tomorrow.

So far I have been turned down four times when I have asked for a copy of the baseball stadium feasibility study conducted by Mark Houser’s EquityOne company out of Libertyville. He and his buddy baseball promoter Pete Heitman have been on this scheme since

McHenry County Blog ferreted out the contract for this $70,000 study in mid-March.

In this September, 2006, document, the college trustees gave away control to the entire project to Houser’s Equity One.

Don’t think so?

Read this paragraph:

At the completion of the feasibility study and independent review, if the College elects to proceed with the project, the College will contract with EquityOne or it’s (sic) assigns to develop the project on the College’s behalf.

Here’s what else it contains:

1. Concept Planning, including “confer(ing) and confirm(ing) with Crystal Lake that the improvements will be approved.”
2. Revised Site Plan to show additional parking.
3. Revised Project Cost Estimate to include the cost of the additional land and improvements.
4. Revised Revenue Projections to include the additional revenue from leasing a portion of the land to another user group.
5. Revised Operating Budget to include the College’s cost to own and maintain the additional land.
6. Revised Cash Flow Analysis to reflect the additional income and expenses resulting from the additional land.
7. Revised Time Table to reflect any changes that may occur due to the acquisition of the additional land.
8. Summary: Analyze the preceding information to provide an opinion on project viability if additional land is included.

But, do we have a right to read the blueprint that appears almost certain to lead to $45 million in debt without any serious outside oversight?

No way.

It contains propriety information.

I have a modest suggestion:

Write a letter to the college and ask for the study.

To make it easy, I have drafted such a letter, which you can find here.

Frankly, I doubt many people will take me up on my offer, but the more MCC receives, the more likely the board is to release the study.

So far I have been turned down four times when I have asked for a copy of the baseball stadium feasibility study conducted by Mark Houser’s EquityOne company out of Libertyville. He and his buddy baseball promoter Pete Heitman have been on this scheme since

McHenry County Blog ferreted out the contract for this $70,000 study in mid-March.

In this September, 2006, document, the college trustees gave away control to the entire project to Houser’s Equity One.

Don’t think so?

Read this paragraph:

At the completion of the feasibility study and independent review, if the College elects to proceed with the project, the College will contract with EquityOne or it’s (sic) assigns to develop the project on the College’s behalf.

Here’s what else it contains:

1. Concept Planning, including “confer(ing) and confirm(ing) with Crystal Lake that the improvements will be approved.”
2. Revised Site Plan to show additional parking.
3. Revised Project Cost Estimate to include the cost of the additional land and improvements.
4. Revised Revenue Projections to include the additional revenue from leasing a portion of the land to another user group.
5. Revised Operating Budget to include the College’s cost to own and maintain the additional land.
6. Revised Cash Flow Analysis to reflect the additional income and expenses resulting from the additional land.
7. Revised Time Table to reflect any changes that may occur due to the acquisition of the additional land.
8. Summary: Analyze the preceding information to provide an opinion on project viability if additional land is included.

But, do we have a right to read the blueprint that appears almost certain to lead to $45 million in debt without any serious outside oversight?

No way.

It contains propriety information.

I have a modest suggestion:

Write a letter to the college and ask for the study.

To make it easy, I have drafted such a letter, which you can find here.

Frankly, I doubt many people will take me up on my offer, but the more MCC receives, the more likely the board is to release the study.