McHenry County Blog

Many public officials are in denial about how their own actions and non-cooperation add to the public’s mistrust of government and even disgust of government.

Public officials adopt either a public servant’s I’m-here-to-help attitude or a self-serving I-don’t-want-to-bother attitude.

I asked former Huntley 158 School Board member Larry Snow if he had seen a copy of the recently negotiated contract with the support worker’s union (HESPA).

It is before the Huntley Board of Education to be voted on.

Snow looked online in Huntley’s board packet and wasn’t able to find it. He volunteered to ask Supt. John Burkey for a copy of the contract. I said, “Sure.”

Snow negotiated the last contract with HESPA along with Burkey and Shawn Green.

While Snow was on the board there wasn’t another board member who put in more time getting the district financially on track and getting its accounting reported correctly.

In other words, Snow put in thousands of hours helping the district keep the district solvent.

Let’s see how helpful as a public servant Burkey was.

Here is Snow’s email to Supt. Burkey and above, Burkey’s response:

Subject: Re: BOE Agenda 8-19-10
From: Burkey, John
Date: 8-17-10 5:29 pm
To: Larry Snow
Burkey, John wrote:
I cannot email it now as it is not a public document until after the
Board approves it. It will be online after that.

—–Original Message—–
From: Larry Snow [mailto:lsnow@mc.net]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:40 PM
To: Burkey, John
Cc: Fettes, Naomi
Subject: Re: BOE Agenda 8-19-10

Can you email me a copy of the HESPA contract that will be voted on at
the board meeting?

That’s pretty close to what I asked for myself and the reply I received from Public Information Offier Lori Woods.

While Burkey writes how he “cannot,” there is no legal prohibition preventing Burkey from providing the information because it is not a public document.

It is a decision on Burkey’s part how he “won’t.”

He can, but simply “won’t.”

While the proposed teachers’ contract was available on the internet on the District 158 web site, the support workers’ contract is not.

It’s a deliberate choice to switch from transparency to secretiveness.

Some superintendents choose to be uncooperative, as Burkey has, while insisting that residents and parents be cooperative.

Such unresponsive and uncooperative government is, frankly, unworthy of local government.

Cooperation on small matters or lack thereof turns people off.

Stakes are much higher in the national arena where the public’s trust is eroding in President Barack Obama. As a candidate he promised his would be the most transparent government.

He would not receive a passing grade on that subject today.

The choice in December is to sweep Illinois Dems out of office, not to save our country, but to definitely help save ourselves from unresponsive people in government positions of authority.

I understand plenty of union members have a copy of the contract, so why won’t the administration share copies with Snow and me?

If the district can post the last teachers’ contract online before it was voted on, as it did, it should matter of factly include the HESPA contract in the online board packet where it could be seen by taxpayers.

Putting that packet online before meetings puts District 158 out in front of most local governments, after all.

But, the District 158 board and superintendent can hardly brag about transparency when they won’t post the contract until it is too late for public input.

And won’t send out copies when requested.

When a union and management works together it can pay good dividends for both sides.

A lot of time this is idle talk. Not so in the Huntley school district. In fact, in Huntley you have a large contrast between the strike happy teachers’ union and the other union, which worked out a contract in less than a week.

You see there are two unions in the Huntley school district.

One is the teachers’ union, euphemistically the Huntley Education Association, whose leaders adopt a “strike, don’t compromise” combative approach.

The second is the service workers union, HESPA, the Huntley Educational Service Providers Association. HESPA leaders are no less protective of their members’ rights, but they take a “let’s work this out together” approach when dealing with management.

Two and a half days of serious negotiations for HESPA. No strike.

The teachers have more formal education, but the service workers obviously have more street smarts when it comes to getting management to listen to their point of view.

It might just be common sense, but the service workers realize that constantly ticking off management ruins one’s credibility and makes it harder, not easier, to get a favorable outcome.

The Huntley teachers’ union leaders seem to feel they are entitled to get whatever they want.

Those union leaders agreed to pay a minimum of $10 per month for medical insurance and an additional $10 per month for dental insurance in their new contract.

What the HESPA leaders agreed to in their current contract was this language:
“Insurance contributions will reflect current HEA contributions. Should HEA contributions change, HESPA contributions will change accordingly.”

The contributions were the monthly benefit contributions from the District allocated to the employees. But there was no specific mention about additional costs. Potential additional minimum costs weren’t bargained for with HESPA last time around.

The Board decided during teacher negotiations that it would not ask the HESPA employees to pay the $20 per month.

If you look at how much in attorney fees were invoiced during teacher negotiations you can bet the decision was based on the advice of counsel.

The Board informally informed HESPA through the school administration they would not charge or add in the $20 per month in minimum fees.

At last Thursday’s Board meeting this topic was discussed.

It looks like the board is going to keep its word and not charge the HESPA employees the minimum $20 per month.

A final vote will be at this month’s Board meeting where the union that didn’t annoy the board may be officially rewarded.

As a practical matter, if you cost taxpayers about $2,000 in legal fees to do a contract, as opposed to the $50,000 to $70,000 in legal fees the teachers adversarial approach caused, there is an inherent cost justification available for such a Board decision.

When a union and management works together it can pay good dividends for both sides.

A lot of time this is idle talk. Not so in the Huntley school district. In fact, in Huntley you have a large contrast between the strike happy teachers’ union and the other union, which worked out a contract in less than a week.

You see there are two unions in the Huntley school district.

One is the teachers’ union, euphemistically the Huntley Education Association, whose leaders adopt a “strike, don’t compromise” combative approach.

The second is the service workers union, HESPA, the Huntley Educational Service Providers Association. HESPA leaders are no less protective of their members’ rights, but they take a “let’s work this out together” approach when dealing with management.

Two and a half days of serious negotiations for HESPA. No strike.

The teachers have more formal education, but the service workers obviously have more street smarts when it comes to getting management to listen to their point of view.

It might just be common sense, but the service workers realize that constantly ticking off management ruins one’s credibility and makes it harder, not easier, to get a favorable outcome.

The Huntley teachers’ union leaders seem to feel they are entitled to get whatever they want.

Those union leaders agreed to pay a minimum of $10 per month for medical insurance and an additional $10 per month for dental insurance in their new contract.

What the HESPA leaders agreed to in their current contract was this language:
“Insurance contributions will reflect current HEA contributions. Should HEA contributions change, HESPA contributions will change accordingly.”

The contributions were the monthly benefit contributions from the District allocated to the employees. But there was no specific mention about additional costs. Potential additional minimum costs weren’t bargained for with HESPA last time around.

The Board decided during teacher negotiations that it would not ask the HESPA employees to pay the $20 per month.

If you look at how much in attorney fees were invoiced during teacher negotiations you can bet the decision was based on the advice of counsel.

The Board informally informed HESPA through the school administration they would not charge or add in the $20 per month in minimum fees.

At last Thursday’s Board meeting this topic was discussed.

It looks like the board is going to keep its word and not charge the HESPA employees the minimum $20 per month.

A final vote will be at this month’s Board meeting where the union that didn’t annoy the board may be officially rewarded.

As a practical matter, if you cost taxpayers about $2,000 in legal fees to do a contract, as opposed to the $50,000 to $70,000 in legal fees the teachers adversarial approach caused, there is an inherent cost justification available for such a Board decision.