McHenry County Blog

Teachers picketing in front of the Huntley High School.

In September 2008, the Huntley school district and the Huntley teachers union (the “HEA” for Huntley Education Association) ended a strike and reached an agreement.

It was for three years.

All remaining issues that were left for joint committees of the district and union…salary and retirement benefits, for instance.

They have yet to be agreed upon.

Seeing how we are a few months away from two years later, it’s easy to assume the Huntley teachers want more, not less.

But, wanting more is quite an approach to dealing with the current economic climate and reality.

I don’t have any written proof but my suspicions are the Huntley teachers union filed for arbitration in an attempt to get more from a “final agreement.”

The district uses the term “Final Agreement” in its web site link to the contract.

Keely Cat didn't stay in the bag very long.

The cat (not Keeley) may be out of the bag, word of mouth wise, if it turns out the union leaders notified its members that they filed for arbitration.

This is why I have filed Freedom of Information requests for any documents filed or correspondence and emails sent by the union.

Supt. John Burkey has the choice of being transparent and providing the information or he can try to cite an exemption from disclosure.

It’s the District 158′s leader’s choice whether or not he wants residents to know what the teachers union is asking for, and what the district’s response is to the union.

He may not want taxpayers to know the teachers union filed for arbitration (if they officially did.)

The current twenty-six page agreement can be found on the district’s web site using this link.

On page 24 you can find this:

Agreement #1

The BOE and HEA will form a joint committee to review compensation for certified staff members. Review areas include:

Somehow in a we-want-more interpretation of what words mean Huntley teachers apparently are expecting something more to be agreed to when only committees were agreed to.

Huntley spent over a $100,000 in lawyer fees for an attorney to sit in on the many hours of negotiations including the many hours when there was literally nothing to do but wait for a response from the union who was then at the time in a separate room.

That’s a lot of money to make sure, for example, an agreement is carefully drafted that doesn’t put the district at future financial risk because of a union legal maneuver.

If Huntley entered into an agreement that somehow allows the union’s attorney to get more benefits paid to the teachers without the board agreeing to it, in my opinion, Huntley got some bad advice.

It would be so bad, if I were on the board, I would try to terminate the lawyer’s services, if that person was the district’s primary source of legal advice.

While other districts are discussing with their teachers union on modifying their current agreement in the downward direction, many people may have this reaction if it turns out the Huntley teachers are officially pressing for more benefits under the current agreement:

What planet are the Huntley teachers living on?

As you may expect, no Huntley teacher may want to be officially quoted or indirectly referenced about what is really going on. My email address is on this page.  I more welcome information and am happy to pass it along without identifying the source.

One might guess that the union hasn’t agreed to any joint committee meetings to discuss the current salary schedule.

For months the union took the position that there won’t be any such joint meetings on alternatives to the current salary schedule until after an agreement was reached on retirement compensation.

Apparently the state’s pension benefits and plan isn’t good enough for Huntley teachers, who probably want more benefits and lower costs written into their agreement.

The margin was overwhelming on election day.

65% to 35%.

Before adding in absentee and early votes, Skala led the two-county school district by about 3,700 to 1,300.

Almost 2-1.

A landslide.

Mike Skala, who lost a campaign two years ago while Huntley School District 158 Board President to Aileen Seedorf, Kevin Gentry and Jim Carlin, trounced elected incumbent Larry Snow.

Skala can again refer to himself as an “elected school board member,” rather than an “appointed school board member.”

Skala’s was a well-run campaign.

Snow’s was handicapped by an automobile accident that left him incapable of mounting a door-to-door campaign.

Skala’s campaign consisted of at least three mailings, including a post card of endorsement from State Representative and McHenry County Republican Party Chairman Mike Tryon, one of the recipients of a generous Skala company contribution, and Pam Althoff, similarly, a recipient of a generous contribution.

He had two at least other mailings, neither of which I got a copy of.

There was a phone call the last weekend and plenty of signs, none of which could I find a mere one hour after the polls closed. Skala’s efficient organization had taken them all down. Virtually all seem to have been illegally put on the public right of way.

I especially like the homemade-looking ones (maybe they were homemade) saying, “Vote Today.”

That’s an innovation worth copying.

My guess is that Skala’s was a classic voter identification and get out the vote campaign built upon the base of approximately 1,000 teachers and family members who live within the District 158 boundaries.

More than teachers and their families voted for Skala, of course.

He got almost 2,000 votes in McHenry County and 317 in the Kane County part of Sun City. Still incomplete, but let’s say 2,300-plus.

Two years ago, in his close loss, Skala received 1,570 votes in McHenry County and 301 in Kane County. That’s almost 1,900.

Four years ago, Snow got 1,877 in McHenry County and 1,191 in Kane County for 2,978, more than Skala received this time around.

Snow got 833 in McHenry this year and 462 in Kane, totally about 1,300. A 1,600 vote drop off.

So Skala’s vote increased 400 from two years ago and Snow’s decreased 1,600 from four years ago.

Of course, people aren’t as angry today about the deceptive tax hike Skala spoke for way back then. Political memories are short.

Politicians who hike taxes count on that.

And, lots of the Sun City folks probably have not yet returned from their snowbird homes, since Easter is next weekend.

It is interesting to note that most of Snow’s supporters did not vote for the four unopposed candidates for the four-year seats. Those spots will be filled by incumbents Shawn Green and Kim Skaja, plus newcomers Paul Troy and Donald Drzal.

Typically, lots of people are turned off by the type of smear campaign mounted by Skala’s allies.

Voters decide just not to participate.

That is exactly the reaction that those mounting the smear campaign usually hope for.

I wonder if this was a deliberately thought out strategy by the Skala campaign manager.

In any event, Skala’s campaign was obviously professionally managed and adequately financed.

I can hear the cheers of the teachers for the husband of their former co-president.

No more pesky questions on behalf of the taxpayers from Larry Snow.

No more forensic audits being pushed to look at illegally approved payments to administrators, which were never recovered by the board majority.

No more questions from Snow about why sexual harassment settlements are not discussed at public board meetings.

No more from Snow questions about why cronies are being pushed for high paid district positions for which they are unqualified.

And, most importantly, no more Larry Snow as chief salary negotiator.

The question remains whether this “lesson” will keep future taxpayer-oriented citizens from daring to invade the teacher-controlled school board majority citadel.

Back to the old way of doing things.

I wonder when the next tax hike referendum will be held.

This is the final segment of the email exchange between Huntley School Board member Larry Snow and Huntley Education Association spokeswoman Jen Weichle. (See Part 1 and Part 2.)

Below Snow finishes his reasons for declining to participate in last night union teachers union questioning of him and his opponent Mike Skala, whose wife is a teacher and former union leader.

Snow and Skala two the only two candidates who are running against each other for the two-year term. Those seeking four-year terms are unopposed.

Snow is basically contenting that the refusal to allow candidates to compare themselves to their opponents makes the forum a “set-up.”

Here is the rest of Snow’s last email:

“Mr. Skala’s voting for an extremely costly teachers contract and including himself in executive, closed sessions of negotiations with the HEA is a common sense conflict of interest issue in this campaign.

“I can understand where you would want voters to get the impression that this is not an issue by my attending the forum and under your ground rules have it be implied that his voting and acting on behalf of your union is not an issue.

“It is.

“It is so telling that even today Mr. Skala doesn’t admit that voting for his wife to receive an enormous pay raise was a conflict of interest and he shouldn’t have done it.

“Instead he is quoted today, as saying he ‘probably’ shouldn’t have. Your ground rules would not allow me to point out how Mr. Skala has yet to learn what he did was wrong.

“Last year Mr. Skala included himself in an executive closed session meeting of the Board before the teachers union actually went on strike. I understand you might want Mr. Skala to listen in to a secret and highly sensitive discussion of the roll out of board’s communication plan and whether this included hiring replacement teachers.

“It was wrong for Mr. Skala to include himself, and it is less than truthful for Mr. Skala to say he recused himself when, at a critical time and meeting, secret details were discussed, when he included himself. Your ground rules would not permit me to introduce facts to rebut what Mr. Skala’s interpretation of ‘recuse’ is.

“3. Before I got on the board our district had no specific measurable ACT goals, management goals or other test score goals.

“Your ground rules would not permit me to point how how before I was on the board Mr. Skala did nothing to put accountability in this regard for the education of our district. Your ground rules would also prevent my pointing out how Mr. Skala voted for budgets that caused deficit spending.

“I truly understand why the HEA wants to cover up Mr. Skala’s actions and voting record, and not allow me to compare it with mine so voters are not informed. Residents voted him out of office in the last election.

“I took a public position as lead or ‘chief’ negotiator the HEA’s strike was wrong and unnecessary.

“I understand how you may not want to give me the opportunity at your forum to point out how Mr. Skala did not (and refused) to publicly say the strike was wrong while it was happening.

“Your ground rules are intended to make your event a publicity event for Mr. Skala with restrictions that favor Mrs. Skala’s husband.

“Your remarks have highlighted how it will not be a neutral event but showcase the union’s bias (referring to your ‘strong reflections’ words) Again, I decline your invitation and have canceled the help I might need to physically attend your event.

“I appreciate your answering my questions about the ground rules and the intentions of the HEA having the event.

“Sincerely,

“Larry Snow”

Yesterday, the first part of an interchange of emails between Huntley School District 158 board member Larry Snow and Huntley Education Association Spokeswoman Jen Weichle was presented.

In it, Weichle lays down ground rules which prohibit opening statements and comparisons between Larry Snow and Mike Skala, the only two candidates invited to the meeting.

Only Skala, whose wife is a teacher and past union leader, and Snow, who was chief negotiator for the board in last year’s salary negotiations, are running against each other.

The next email comes from Snow:

Ms. Weichle,

Thank you for clarifying:

1. No. Comparisons between candidates’ positions will not be permitted.

2. It was made very clear that the event will be a strong reflection on the two unions.

As you know we had a difference of interpretation during contract negotiations of what the word “reasonable” means.

The HEA’s position was your request for a 30% pay hike in the first year was “reasonable”.

My interpretation of “personal attack” in your ground rules allows for me to point out Mr. Skala’s voting record and his actions as a Board President and board member.

The HEA’s interpretation does not. Refer to Ms. Weichle’s email below.

I can understand why the HEA wants to hide Mr. Skala’s voting record and actions from voters.

As such, I have decided to not participate because the HEA is choosing to not allow the public to be fully informed at your event on three critical issues in this election campaign.

1. Mr. Skala’s record, as Board President, of ignoring a “No” tax increase vote and then running a large tax hike campaign that was based on a series of financial deceptions, for which he insisted his facts were “not debatable” and for which he performed no due diligence. The word “deception” was used by the Daily Herald (July 2005) in its editorial on the subject.

See attached. By your ground rules you would not allow my comment that Mr. Skala led the Board to raise everyone’s taxes.

I have a record of asking and then insisting Mr. Skala be straight with the voters on this issue. Frankly, Mr. Skala could have truthfully told voters about:

• 5 million dollars he made sure was not budgeted.
• 9 million of the 13 million of debt that got parked, unused, into a money market account.
• There was no financial crisis; 4 new schools could open with more new teachers and staff.

2. I understand how Mrs. Skala has been an official in your teachers union, and teacher in our district, and how you want to help her husband get elected to be in a position again to overtly help your union during future negotiations. As you know the Board is currently in negotiations with the teachers union on pay and health benefit issues.

Part 3 of this article, in which Snow concludes this email, comes tomorrow.

I have received a series of emails between Huntley School District 158 board member Larry Snow and a representative of the Huntley Education Association.

The interchange concerns whether the candidates will be able to compare and contrast their performance in office with that of the opponent.

The short answer is “No.”

I found it so fascinating that I am publishing it in three parts, letting the combatants speak for themselves:

Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:21:47 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

Subject: [Fwd: Re: Meet the Candidates Night Ground Rules]

Can you confirm if this is correct? (the forwarded email)

Also, are you going to allow any time for an opening remark?

Larry Snow

= = = = =
Jen (Weichle) wrote:

The intention is for the candidates to share what they themselves have to offer. You are more than welcome to discuss your voting record. There will not be time for opening remarks.

If you have any other questions, please let me know!

Jen
= = = = =
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:44:58 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Meet the Candidates Night Ground Rules]

It is a yes/no question. Will comparisons between the two board candidates be allowed or will it be considered contrary to the ground rules?

Mr. Skala was a board member and I was a resident, and not a board member for many years.

Is it a “candidate forum” if you will not allow a candidate to compare his and his opponent’s voting record?

Does the HEA want to take a position against professionally phrased political free speech?

Larry

= = = = =

Jen wrote:

Mr. Snow,

No. Comparisons between candidates’ positions will not be permitted. The event is designed to allow candidates to share anything about themselves they wish to convey to the public.
However, candidates are not permitted to share their views on other candidates or other candidates’ views, board voting history etc. We hope you can see where that type of interaction could quickly deteriorate into personal attacks.

In response to concerns initially expressed by at least one candidate that the event might turn into a free for all or X number against one, we decided to eliminate the variables that might promote hostile and negative interaction between the candidates. It was made very clear that the event will be a strong reflection on the two unions hosting the event. We took that feedback under consideration in arriving at the format we did.

Candidates will be guests of the HEA and the HESPA. Candidates are invited to participate in what we understand to be the only candidate forum open to the public. We do not believe that it is too much to ask that participants abide by the ground rules put in place to address the concerns expressed by those very same individuals.

Part 2 tomorrow.

What kind of candidates’ forum will not allow candidates to make a comparison between their different positions in a two person race?

One sponsored by the Huntley teachers union.

There is a two-person election for a two-year term in Huntley School District 158.

Mike Skala, the school board president who was narrowly defeated two years ago and appointed when his buddy Jim Carlin conveniently resigned six months into his term, is running against Larry Snow, who is completing a four-year elective term.

It’s the only contest on the school board ballot.

The Huntley Educational Association, which at one point had Mike Skala’s wife as one of its leaders, is sponsoring the forum.

No neutral observer would suggest that the teachers union is not supporting Skala.

So, union leaders have set forth forum rules that prohibit the making of comparisons between the two candidates.

What?

No comparisons in a political race?

Aren’t comparisons what political campaigns are all about?

Is it even possible to have an issue-oriented political forum when the ground rules prevent a candidate from contrasting his positions with those of the other candidate in a two-person race?

Why not just have a coronation?

Apparently the teachers union wants a re-play of the 55-cent tax hike referendum campaign in which Skala refused to debate the financial facts with Snow.

And that’s what those attending will get.

The ground rules prevent Snow from pointing out Skala’s record of running the district as board president, with “all of its scandals like depreciating 100 buses that didn’t exist, deceptions and corrupt practices, including nepotism, that became headline news,” as Snow puts it.

It prevents Snow from pointing out how Skala voted for deficit spending and selling off the school buses the district owned outright to pay for a huge teacher union pay increase.

Could it be that the teachers union wants to protect Skala from inconvenient truths?

Truths like

• homeowners having had their property taxes increased by over $2,000 since 2005
• the “deceptive” (word from a Daily Herald editorial headline above) tax hike campaign he led
• voting for a teachers’ contract in 2002 which ended up in his wife’s getting a 50% raise over its four years
• Skala’s recent vote to take off the agenda acknowledging the settlement of sexual harassment charges by District 158

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.

I wonder how many dissatisfied teachers will show up at the Huntley School District 158 Board’s Committee of the Whole meeting on Thursday night.

The agenda item that popped off the screen is a discussion of the $10 per month payment for medical and dental coverage.

That’s $20 a month that teachers have to pay.

This item is what kept the Huntley Education Association’s leaders from signing the overwhelmingly approved contract so long.

Interesting “accomplishment” for a union that went on strike.

The meeting starts at 6 PM, just in case you are interested.

I wonder how many dissatisfied teachers will show up at the Huntley School District 158 Board’s Committee of the Whole meeting on Thursday night.

The agenda item that popped off the screen is a discussion of the $10 per month payment for medical and dental coverage.

That’s $20 a month that teachers have to pay.

This item is what kept the Huntley Education Association’s leaders from signing the overwhelmingly approved contract so long.

Interesting “accomplishment” for a union that went on strike.

The meeting starts at 6 PM, just in case you are interested.