In the last contract, the parties agreed to cut 14 hours our of the teachers year.  This did not reduce student contact time, just “institute” days.

However, the teachers had to make up these 14 hours with “flex” time. This time had to be related to teaching and approved by the administration.

For the second half of the year, the teachers have started a homework club.  This club meets twice a week after school and is supervised by a rotation of teachers 2-3 each session.   Children are encouraged to come if they need extra help.

While not completely selfless, the teachers could have opted for meetings, presentations, projects to fulfill these hours, but they chose to use these hours to increase the contact time with students.

Special Education writing on the wall of School District 158's Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey's office. (Click to enlarge or look below.)

Maybe the analogy alluded to in the headline is off base.

It looks like job descriptions. This is the left hand side of what you see above. (Click to enlarge.)

It’s difficult to tell what went on in Huntley School District 158’s Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey’s office the day this whiteboard was covered with special education notes.  There seem to be job descriptions.

This is the right hand side of the white board seen on top. (Click to enlarge.)

Perhaps some readers can figure out what is going on.

Perhaps it provides an insight as to why so many special ed administrators have left District 158 in such a short time.

Unlike questions about the January 11th resignation letter of Cheryl Kalkirtz, which I am still waiting for District 158 to produce, there can’t be much question this is the real thing.

So, tell me, folks in the know, what’s going on here?

Lazy River at Wisconsin Dells Kalahari Resort approaching a waterfall.

Over the weekend while our family was in the Wisconsin Dells (son and buddy in water park, father reading novels, wife visiting with family), the following comment on this article about Cheryl Kalkirtz’ resignation letter arrived.

I thought it might interest more people than those who take the time to go all the way back to the article to check on new comments.

It might even help District 158 reply to a recent Freedom of Information request I filed.

Don Drzal and Kim Skaja want everyone to believe that what they and Burkey have done is honest and true, and everything Cal and Cheryl have said is fabricated to make them look bad. They claim parents who believe anything other than what comes from the district are stupidly following garbage.

Lets take it one step at a time to see what seems most reasonable.

#1

A. Kim, Don, and Burkey sate that Cheryl lied on her resume by claiming she had an endorsement she didn’t really have.

or

B. An entire room of people including one board member and two parents were there when she told Smith that her endorsement was pending.

#2

A. Cheryl had to leave her position, because the district is required by law to have special education run by someone with the correct endorsement. Having her leave her position was legally required.

or

B. This was just an excuse to get rid of Cheryl for refusing to go along with unethical requests made by Burkey such as refusing to reallocate special ed grant money to other areas. Cheryl wasn’t required to hold this endorsement just as the previous director wasn’t. There isn’t a legal reason for the head of special ed to carry the endorsement in question in district 158 just as confirmed by the State Board of Education.  [See this article, as well.]

#3

A. Kim, Martin administrator (opinions shared on Huntley Neighbors with a pseudo-name) say it is impossible for parents to know of the negative information found in Alward’s personnel file, because it does not exist. She has been an outstanding employee who is respected by her peers and superiors.

or

B. The information that has been seen, being identical to that found Alward’s personnel file is legitimate. Including, but not limited to identifying her falsifying gas mileage, changing curriculum without approval, and non-collaborative decision making.

#4

A. Burkey told the truth when he stated that Cheryl’s attorney had not been in contact with the district, and any documentation stating otherwise is fake. He did not lie in regard to the FOIA, because if he did lie it would be grounds for dismissal of his position. Because he did not lie, that is not an issue.

or

B. The first contact made by Cahill and Associates on Feb 2, addressed to Dr. Burkey, faxed to his fax number and transmission of receipt attached is valid. So are the other letters and responding correspondence from Mr. Anthony Ficarelli, 158 attorney, dated Feb 3 and Feb 9 as well as phone consultation on Feb 18, and Burkey did lie when he stated otherwise. Burkey should be investigated and pending proof of the above statements, he should be terminated from his position.

#5

A. Cheryl didn’t turn in a letter of resignation on January 11, and any letter with that date was written after her termination on Feb 1.

or

B. Cheryl handed out 5 copies of her resignation letter to various employees. Several of those copies were shared other employees after January 11, but prior to Feb 1. Employees heard Burkey discuss the copies “original” letter of resignation, and witnessed his hostility at being unable to find it. Because of this original letter or resignation, Terry Awrey met with Cheryl on January 22 in a collaborative meeting to develop a plan on how to address these issues as part their agreement to try to work out the underlying reasons that forced her to write her letter of resignation in the first place. The 3 pages of bullet points that were discussed at this meeting are available and have been viewed.

#6

A. Teachers are happy with administration, they aren’t overworked or under supported. They haven’t been threatened into keeping quiet about any issues, because they feel comfortable speaking with their administration. Parents have bullied the special ed department and have forced them to quit.

or

B. Teachers and other employees have contacted numerous parents, thanking them for helping them. They have stated that they aren’t allowed to discuss any of their concerns for fear of punishment. Administration, teachers and therapists have contacted parents, explaining how they were bullied to keep quiet about the district breaking the law by not meeting IEP minutes and excessive workloads. Some were forced to quit due to lack of support by district administration. They left 158 taking jobs in other districts, because 158 forced them to put money over the needs of the children of district 158.

#7

A. The district has lost so many members of the special ed department, because the parents bullied them into quitting. Others left because the district underpays, and they found more lucrative positions in other districts.

or

B. The employees left because they realized they would never be able to do their jobs properly in 158. As had as they tried to make the district change, it became apparent that it never would. They left to go to districts where they could make a difference. Despite confidentiality agreements, they have shared a lot of information about what they think is wrong with the district and who is really calling the shots in 158.

#8

A. The district has been honest about everything. Parents and Cal Skinner have worked hard, falsifying documents, placing items in personnel files, spreading conspiracy theories, and managed to get employees to support them in this lie for no reason other than to discredit the district for their own twisted agenda.

or

B. Burkey lied, cheated, and deceived the children, school board members, and district 158 teachers and parents in an attempt to cover up his unethical behavior. The 158 BOE follow the 158 administration blindly, refusing to investigate any of the claims by parents. They have refused to even consider the evidence that was delivered to their doors prior to agreeing to the separation agreement between the district and 158. They had almost all of the evidence to prove Burkey lied, but refused to even consider crossing him. All documents are not only legitimate but provable, and none of the board members have admitted to even seeing it.

Whose been deceived? It seems obvious to anyone who is outside of the school board’s circle.

Salary hikes and lack thereof were the subject of a major Sunday Chicago-Sum-Times article.

That the question the Chicago Sun-Times asked last Sunday.

The answer?

Huntley School District strikers at the Harmony Road Campus

Teachers and health care workers.

Certainly teachers at Huntley School District 158. 18% on the average the first year of which we are in.

And staff at Huntley School District 158.

True, Superintendent John Burkey followed the example of some other Fox River Valley chief administrators in foregoing a salary hike this year, but he has received a $70,000 increase since he left his old job near Peoria, including $12,000 more this year than last year.

And Comptroller Mark Altmayer just got a $25,000 raise over the $105,000.

Since most health care employees don’t work for public entities, their salaries are not public information.

It took months to find out.

It seemed to me reasonable to ask whether Huntley School Superintendent John Burkey was “working” on the taxpayers’ dime for his junket (for which the district paid only registration) or on an officially recognized vacation, that is, using up some of his 20 days of vacation.

I wrote this story in early September.

John Burkey

When I first asked, this was the result:

“Information on how specific days by District employees are accounted for is exempt from disclosure per 5ILCS 140, Section 7(b), “information that, if disclosed would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy…(emphasis added)”

So, I asked again:

That reply, I admit was infuriating:

In response to the number of vacation days taken each month in FY09 and FY10:

“Information on how specific days by District employees are accounted for is exempt from disclosure per 5ILCS 140, Section 7(b, “information, that, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy…(emphasis added)”

Let me offer a reason why vacation days might be relevant. What if you were a House Republican staff member and had been told to go help a state representative under challenge by “outsider?”

If someone called up the campaign office of the incumbent on the Friday before the election and the House GOP staffer answered the phone, should you—or I, in this quite real example—as a taxpayer have the right to know whether said staffer was being paid by taxpayers or the campaign?

(I never found out, despite the so-called Ethics bill that former Governor Rod Blagojevich bragged about signing, which, supposedly significantly, required legislative staffers to fill out time sheets for every 15-minute part of the day. I sued, along with Christina Tobin, and a loophole in the law—surprise, surprise—prevented us from getting copies of the time sheets.  That’s what a Cook C0unty circuit court judge ruled.)

In a new January Freedom of Information Act request filed after the new amendments went into effect, I asked again and, guess what, Huntley School District finally coughed up the information about Burkey’s China vacation.

Burkey did use vacation days.

June vacation time sheet (click to enlarge)

June-July vacation time sheet (click to enlarge)

Does that make you wonder why Burkey didn’t want to answer the question the first time I asked it?

And, now that we know the Supt. was on vacation, the next question is why the school district paid $900 for his registration fee?

“A total of $900.00 for the registration fee was paid using District 158 funds for Dr. Burkey’s trip to China. A copy of the registration invoice and board approval is enclosed.”

Cheryl Kalkirtz

The headline is from the third sentence of a January 7th letter of recommendation written by Terry Awrey.

He was Cheryl Kalkirtz’ boss while she was employed at Huntley District 158.

The entire letter is below.

On January 11th, Kalkirtz submitted a letter of resignation offering to end her employment on June 30th at the end of her employment contract.

On February 1st, Kalkirtz departed Huntley under circumstances one could describe as

• “unusual,”
• “mysterious” or
• “unexplained by the district,”

your choice of words or phrases.

Could it be a majority on the board of education and likely Supt. John Burkey didn’t think having “a proven professional” who “has earned the respect of the Administrative Team” was reason enough to keep Kalkirtz employed through the first year of her contract?

Or was something else at work?

What other on-the-job-performance-related qualities did Kalkirtz boss praise her for?

If you read the letter below (click to enlarge), you will see Associate Superintendent Awrey writing:

“I find her to be highly intelligent, motivated and committed
to the educational success of each and every child.”

This hardly seems like a list of reasons for Kalkirtz to be no longer employed.

Did Awrey have any reservations about Kalkirtz?

It certainly doesn’t seem so from what he wrote:

“I recommend Mrs. Kalkirtz without reservation.”

Of course, getting praised by the number two guy in an organization does have its limitations.  The basic  one is that one is not in charge.

So who decided that Kalkirtz needed to no longer be employed as a proven, well respected Huntley professional who is highly intelligent, motivated and committed to the educational success of each and every child?

Huntley principals and other administrators may take note how you, too, could be highly praised one day and be thought of apparently very differently soon thereafter.

The phrase “we would never do something like this” takes on a different meaning when you look at in the context of Cheryl Kalkirtz employment.

So far, no good-reason explanation has been advanced for why board members and Supt. Burkey didn’t allow Kalkirtz to finish her contract, which ended until June 30th.

Huntley has done so in the past for other next step higher up administrators.

What happened can probably be found filed in a locked file cabinet in the office of Lauren Smith, Director of Human Resources under “Employee Morale – Bad.”

How can you have so many fair-minded, public-spirited, caring, well-meaning individuals as top administrators and board members and have this happen?

Maybe someone can answer that question.

Join Huntley School District 158–where you can be exceptional administrator or employee one week and no-longer-employed a few weeks later.

Remember.

It’s all for the children.

Cheryl Kalkirtz at a town hall meeting on special education shortly after being hired.

The original opening sentence of yesterday’s Daily Herald’s article on former Special Education Director Cheryl Kalkirtz read,

“Recently released documents show a former special education director in Huntley Unit District 158 overstated her qualifications on her job application.”

For some reason, it changed to

“Documents obtained recently by the Daily Herald paint a contradictory picture of what transpired when a former special education director in Huntley Unit District 158 applied for her job last year.”

You might think this is the real reason behind Kalkirtz’ leaving Huntley School District 158.

Au contraire.

There is far more to it than an employment application, which Kalkirtz may not have personally filled out.

Apparently reporter Jameel Naqvi knows about Cheryl Kalkirtz’ resignation on January 11th, but you can’t tell it from the Daily Herald headline (which editors, not reporters usually write).  Here’s the original headline:

Ex-Huntley Dist. 158 special ed. chief pumped up job application

Here’s the revision:

Question Ex-Huntley Dist. 158 special ed. chief pump up job application?

What Supt. Burkey did comment on in the article relative to Kalkirtz’ resignation was,

“Burkey said the brief statement was the only letter Kalkirtz submitted.” (emphasis added)

If so, I wonder about this letter, which McHenry County Blog has obtained a while back:

It’s addressed to Superintendent John Burkey.

And to school board members.

Could it be that Burkey doesn’t read letters of resignation from top administrators?

Or doesn’t remember?

We know several board members received copies of Kalkirtz’ January letter of resignation, weeks after she had departed.  They were hand delivered to board member’s homes.

Apparently Burkey didn’t pass along Kalkirtz’ resignation letter, addressed also to board members, when Kalkirtz submitted it on January 11th.

If I were on a school board, I’d certainly want to see a letter like this.

Especially with all the controversy about Special Ed.

Below is Kalkirtz’ January 11th letter of resignation with print large enough print to read.

Burkey apparently begged Kalkirtz to stay with the district after she first met with Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey.

They two met with Supt. Burkey to discuss Kalkirtz’ resignation.

After imploring her to stay, Kalkirtz agreed.

A few weeks went by.

Days after Burkey got a new three-year employment contract approved by the board, Burkey apparently decided to have Kalkirtz leave abruptly, rather than her continue through the school year, as she proposed in her January 11th resignation letter.

It’s an interesting way to treat a professional who resigns and commits to finishing out the school year.

When you read the original letter, the Daily Herald’s headline comes across as quite a smear job on Kalkirtz.

Will the Daily Herald take Burkey to task for being less than truthful when he said there was only one resignation letter when there were two?

We’ll see.

The Daily Herald seems to be making a big issue about whether Kalkirtz was truthful.

Will they now hold Burkey to a lower standard?

Or ask why Burkey apparently didn’t check out Kalkirtz’ credentials before hiring her?

Superintendent John Burkey and Special Education Director Cheryl Kalkirtz in happier times.

Maybe Burkey did and thought that, if she were going to be receiving her endorsement soon, then that would be okay, as Burkey did with the Assistant Special Ed Directors who also were required by state law to have their endorsements when they took their jobs.

It looks as if Burkey recommended several people for jobs that required endorsements, got the board to approve them and, then, after Kalkirtz submitted her January resignation letter, singled her out.

After all, none of the people running Special Ed in any school district that belongs to SEDOM, the Special Education District of McHenry County, needs to have a Special Ed Director certification, because the SEDOM Director Kathy Wilhoit’s endorsement is sufficient.

If this isn’t what happened, Burkey can set the record straight the same time he admits there was a previous resignation letter.

When you read Kalkirtz’ original resignation letter below you can understand why Burkey might want to say the letter never existed.

You might also understand how it came about Kalkirtz departed Huntley.

There’s one thing administrators and board members should know about confidentiality clauses; they don’t apply to when the documents are already beyond someone’s control.

Lots of people with the district talked about Kalkirtz resigning when it happened on January 11th.  The grapevine gushed out news about it.

People outside of board members and administrators not only had a copy of Kalkirtz’ January 11th resignation letter, but other documents as well prior to any agreement being entered into between Kalkirtz and the district.

Below is the text of the January 11, 2010, resignation letter from Cheryl Kalkirtz:

January 11th, 2010

Consolidated School District 158
Board of Education Members
Dr. John Burkey, Superintendent
650 Academic Drive
Algonquin, IL 60102

I am providing you with this letter of resignation, upon the completion of my contract for the 2009-2010 school years, for your approval as I have selected to look for other employment at this time. I would like to cite some particular examples for my decision to not stay with the district, also offering artifacts, correspondence or concrete examples for my departure, as an experienced administrator who has persevered at a district with many changes or dis structure that was placed before her.

The bullet points as below, generally describe my reasons for not choosing to remain at District #158 next year:

• The administrative design for the Office of Special Services from day one has required a different structure, as experienced cabinet members could have prevented so much change, and even one assistant director’s resignation during this school year, as that administrator has still not been replaced.
• I started the school year, needing to rapport build with a new office staff, who I was encouraged not to trust, causing disharmony in our immediate office setting. Still, we grew as a family, office staff are extremely dedicated and loyal, and I have observed trustworthiness and professionalism.
• I would mentor 3 new assistant directors to oversee the district’s special education populations, with a disproportionate structure for supervision responsibilities. The cabinet has heard my ongoing concerns regarding themes of our office and has not always included me with problem-solving strategies.
• I have represented reports, to the best of my ability, with other cabinet members either changing reports on the fly or have been asked to change reports sporadically, without ensuring accuracy in the completion of reports that I would need to represent formally.
• Communications to my superiors, verbally or via e-mail, have not always been acknowledged, as a new administrator to the district, regarding decision-making for my department.
• I was unable to participate in staff development, or have a leadership role for Special Services staff to have Institute Day opportunities to meet throughout the year, as past practices periodically allowed for this. I was not even formally introduced to the district by my superiors at the district’s opening Institute Day, and neither was my new administrative team from the get go.
• Fiscal data has not been collaborative.
• Curriculum and assessments for special needs students have been authoritarian style versus collaborative, and I have found that the Curriculum Director has required my providing her with reports about curriculum and criteria for establishing curriculum for the near 1,400 students who we represent, versus recommending curriculum according to her expertise and background or being advised to adopt programs that may or may not be successful for our students, due to former animosity between herself and my predecessor.
• Caseloads and workloads for staff have been an ongoing struggle, as workloads for Special Education Staff became a legal requirement last spring into this fall with the state board of education, with my coming onboard to a new district. This fact has been a thorn in the office of Special Services throughout the entire year and relationship building has been limited during an average work day, as my administrative team has been limited for addressing many of the workload concerns. Finally, this winter, the district is establishing committees to follow through with workloads, represented by the Human Resource Office, respectfully.
• District wide initiatives, such as RTI that leads to special education eligibility, PBIS, action-planning, the District’s first Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education, managing data with different fiscal databases, and strengthening special education compliance without an IEP database, has been a difficult and unique process, with a redeveloped administrative Special Services Team and a strong need for more clerical support, when compared to the other offices in our district. Morale has been an ongoing concern, additionally. All of the points listed are important to me, as how I am publicly perceived as a public school administrator.

As I have touched upon several concerning areas, as listed, please know that my original enthusiasm and intended dedication has always remained sincere and proactive, amidst the many changes placed before my office and programs.

To turn so many known obstacles around in such a short period of time, also with directives from my superiors to change how we function as an office with so much frequency or lack of communication, administrative guidance has been unclear, limited toward me for opportunities to understand the direction of how leadership wants me to interchange with understanding future designs or new directions for the district via long term goals.

In conclusion, my predecessor, from what I have heard, experienced all of these concerns and articulated these similarities to her superiors during her tenure with the district.

Respectfully, I will miss the collaborations and relationships that I have developed through our district and our Special Education cooperative and I hope that the district learns from an experienced district level administrator who tried to positively persevere at a district that needs to reconsider their foundation for professional learning communities for all of their stakeholders.

Dorr Township Attorney Mark Saladin and Supervisor Bob Pierce

“Filled to capacity” is how one person in attendance last night at the Dorr Township meeting.

The Dorr Township Hall meeting room is small, so that meant about 25 residents were present.

The biggest news was that Supervisor Bob Pierce was granted permission to enter negotiations for the purchase of land, which he said would not be purchased without having a special meeting to get elector approval.

Note that a special meeting is not the same as the annual town meeting, which is usually the best attended meeting of the year.

Pierce said residents “would be surprised.”

Steven Kaiser makes his points.

“Dorr is the fourth largest township with the smallest hall!” he observed.

Legat Architects was also hired to provide “pre-referendum services.”

Public comments came early on with Steve Kaiser, a member of the now-disbanded Dorr Township Citizens Committee, asking about why “soil borings” was changed to “architects.”

Those March 9th soil borings were not presented to the board by the Road Commissioner Tom Thurman because he wanted to seek assistance interpreting them.

With trustees and audience members putting in their two cents about whether the minutes reflected what had occurred at the previous meeting, the exchange got heated.

“This is not going to become another Grafton Township,” Township Supervisor Bob Pierce said.

During the Public Comment section, the Supervisor and Trustees questioned former members of the Dorr Citizens group who presented the petition to rebate taxes. Questions asked included -

1.       How the $1 million number was determined? The officials were told the citizens thought that was the rebate needed to allow a responsible amount to be left over after paying for modifications to garage site and building. After the $1 million rebate, $1.75 million would remain for needed work.

2.       Do you know how difficult and expensive it could be to track down all current and former residents to distribute rebate? Resident Jane Collins explained that in Bourbonnais (a Kankakee County Township) the amount which could not be returned had been given to charitable organizations, after a citizen-initiated motion at an annual town meeting.

Dorr Township Board and attorney

The citizens who proposed the rebate were also asked they thought about the McHenry County Conservation District’s building a visitor center.

Such an argument reminds me of how Grafton Township Trustee Gerry McMahon once listed local governmental entities that had built new administrative facilities—the Huntley School District, the Village of Huntley, McHenry County—as justification for a new Grafton Township Hall.

Township Road Commissioner Tom Thurman suggested some members of the Citizens Committee had “a hidden agenda.” He also said, “We know more than…” the Citizens Committee about what needs to be done.

“You don’t listen to us.”

That prompted a resident Larry Oakford to stand up to chide Thurman, saying his “demeanor is unseemly” and that comments about a hidden agenda were inappropriate. The man also asked about making use of existing space.

Trustee Mark Andersen said the board had been real conservative and was trying to “not drop a bomb on taxpayers.”

The board admitted it had been gradually accumulating funds so they wouldn’t have to go to referendum.

Citizen reading report at the Dorr Township meeting

Everyone knows how hard it is to pass a referendum, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

“The burden is on you to provide a justification about what you do,” Collins suggested, adding that some would say they had been borrowing from the taxpayers without their knowledge and permission since 2002, that what the referendum proposes is a way to pay back some of that loan to the taxpayers.

Thurman said the officials know how to do their job, that citizens shouldn’t be telling them how to do it.

Sue Brokaw, who is bookkeeper and does the General Assistance for Pierce, told the audience they should come to the levy meetings, and so they could do something before the township gets the money instead of complaining about it now.

Board members admitting they had discussed the three building project items “individually” before the meeting.

Vivian Sodini, member of the Dorr Planning Committee, asked why the trustees hadn’t taken the time before last night’s meeting to discuss the details of the recommendations with the committee.

Trustee Joseph Evanoff replied that they didn’t need to because, “We can read.”

When it was revealed that the architects had never been given our report, but had been given a scornful letter written by the one member of the citizens planning committee who thought our only job was to look for land, the audience was stunned. That same member, Ted Anderson, also interviewed architects with Trustee Barry Lamb.

Dorr Township Hall

In discussing one petition question citizens had submitted, it was revealed that the 600 ton capacity included for a new salt shed was based on faulty information. The needed amount being about 4,000 tons, that number was inserted in the question.

“You should have the entire year’s supply” at the start of the season, Road Commissioner Thurman said.

The board decided to put that question to the electors of the annual township meeting.

Members of the disbanded Dorr Township Planning Committee will be allowed make a presentation to electors at the annual meeting, provided they clearly specify they are doing so as electors and not members of the committee.

The meeting will probably be at the High School on South Street in order to hold a larger number of attendees.

Supporters of building a new township hall were also in attendance.

Karen Aylward

I wrote about how Karen Aylward, now the top special ed administrator in Huntley 158, objected to having the meeting with special ed parents run five or ten minutes longer last month.

Ninety minutes. That was the time limit.

This month the Supt. John Burkey administration seems to want no misunderstanding whatsoever about strictly enforcing an hour and a half time limit for the Parent Advisory Committee meeting.

Pretty heavy handed about a 90-minute meeting that doesn’t allow for a question and answer period…unless it is specifically on the agenda.

Maybe the committee should be renamed the “Advise the Parent Committee” rather than the “Parents Advisory Committee,” inasmuch as administrators don’t want to listen to parents about something as simple as being flexible about when the meeting ends.

Fortunately the teachers of special ed students in Huntley are far more dedicated and less time rule obsessive than administrators.

Meanwhile Supt. Burkey likely feels it’s so unfair that parents don’t trust him or his administrators.

One summer, 2009, open-ended Special Ed Town Hall Meeting

Apparently Burkey has opted for the “containment” approach to parents.  A new model in community outreach, I guess.

As opposed to last summer’s Special Education Town Hall Meetings, where at least some school board members listened.

Common sense might dictate that, if an administrator has to leave promptly on a given night, he or she does that.

Huntley administrators leave board meetings early all of the time, so this would be hardly something new.

But this seems to be about more than just getting home to see the wife/husband and kids.

It’s about making the meetings as meaningless as possible, while being able to publicly tout the sincerity of how administrators are listening to parents…if only for a part of ninety minutes

Here’s the limitation on the meeting, which can be found here.

Any community member interested in adding items

to the agenda please contact kaylward@district158.org

(*Note- Our meetings will begin and end promptly

as scheduled, allowing staff and community to

respect professional and personal commitments.

“Please drive safely, everyone.”)

1. After the board discussed the Middle School Handbook and how it had a homework policy in it for Huntley middle schools, Huntley High Principal Dave Johnson stepped up to the rostrum and commented on the absence of a homework policy in the high school handbook:

Mark Altmayer

“I think it would be difficult to come up with a policy.”

2. When the board was discussing whether further cuts should be planned for, Chief Financial Officer Mark Altmayer referred to $1.4 million by saying:

“It’s a lot of money, but it’s not that much money.”

3. When the board was discussing the appointment of a new board member to replace Shawn Green, who resigned at the end of the meeting, board member Donald Drzal commented on whether candidates should answer questions from board members at a public meeting:

“It’s not healthy to allow for a public Q & A.”

4. When Superintendent John Burkey’s proposed to have the last day of school for students be only two hours this year before a long weekend several board members balked, beginning with board member Aileen Seedorf questioning how this made a lot of sense.  After a lengthy discussion by the board Burkey offered this admission:

“I didn’t ask any parents about this.”

If administrators or board members were wondering at times about the audience reaction, these quotes might provide some hints.