McHenry County Blog

As U.S. House Democratic Party Speaker Tip O’Neill said,

“All politics is local.”

So, I guess that puts McHenry County Blog in the right place for those who want to know about “local.”

That’s what McLean County Pundit reminds readers on its masthead.

State Senator Pam Althoff

Today my mailbox was graced with a large envelope from State Senator Pam Althoff (R-McHenry).

I figured it was an invitation to a fundraiser. A fancy fund raiser. It was about that size. It had a stamp, although now that I look at it closely, it’s probably a bulk mail stamp. (Did you know people are more likely to open a letter, if you put a commemorative stamp on it?)

Anyway the letter wasn’t personalized. It was to

“Dear Republican Neighbor”

That seems to be stretching it a bit since I don’t even know where Pam lives, but politicians take liberties with words like “neighbor.”

People skim letters like this. At least I do.

There’s bold face type to help skimmers figure out what is important.

State Senator Pam Althoff's correspondence supporting State Senator Kirk Dillard for governor.

I see former Governor Jim Edgar’s name first.

Befitting a letter endorsing Kirk Dillard, Edgar’s name shows up twice.

But looking at it again, I see this paragraph:

“The people of Illinois deserve nothing less than a Governor who will put taxpayers first…”

Had to stop there, because my one big beef with Kirk, which I talked to him about at his reception held at his wife’s great-great-great something grandfather and former (first elected in 1865) Governor Richard J. Ogelsby’s and grandmother’s home in Decatur during the last GOP state convention and, more recently, when he came to talk to the ladies at 1776 in Crystal Lake, was his vote to triple the RTA sales tax.  It ill cost McHenry County taxpayers on the order of $9 million a year times three.  And we are the smallest collar county

And, now I see he has the endorsement of the IEA, the Illinois Education Association, for those of you who don’t follow state politics. That the biggest teachers’ union and one does not have to watch state politics too closely to know what they want—higher income taxes.

Anyway, the letter arrived yesterday.

We finished the list of individuals listed on State Rep. Jack Franks’ fall fund raiser invitation. Today, we list the political action committees and businesses below:

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen
BNSF Railway
Elevator Constructors Local 2
Freise’s Country Market
Fraternal Order of Police, IL State Lodge
IBEW Local 117
IBEW Local 150
Illinois AFL-CIO
Illinois Association of Fire Protection Districts
Illinois Bankers Association
Illinois Education Association
Illinois Federation of Teachers
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150
Laborers International Union – Midwest Union
Local 11 Cement Masons
McHenry County Conservation Voters
McHenry County Building Trades Council
McHenry County Federation of Teachers Local 1642
Plumbers Local 93
Rockford-Area United Auto Workers CAP
United Transportation Union

Would the Springfield Democrats and teacher unions still be talking about raising the income tax 50%?

(Almost forgot, the Illinois Education Association–90,000 teachers strong–want a “revenue increase,” not a tax hike.)

Of course they would.

They’re Democrats.

Year after year, when the choice came down to pump more money into State Aid to Education or pay pay the state’s share of pension payments, teacher unions took the money and ran.

As far back as the 1970’s, current teacher raises trumped paying for future pensions time and time again.

That’s what hit me while I was reading today’s Chicago Sun-Times editorial entitled,

Teacher union leaders knew that as long as the Illinois Constitution is interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court–who are in a public pension system just like they and I are–pensions promised would be pensions paid, even before future State Aid to Education.

How disingenuous it is for those in the know (and I’m not counting the Sun-Times editorial writers as necessarily being among such folks) to argue

“That liability, it’s important to note, cannot be blamed on excessively generous pension benefits.

“Instead, it is largely reflects failures year after year by the sate to pay its fair share.”

If you are or were a legislator beholding to the Illinois Education Association or the Illinois Federation of Teachers (and way too many Republicans recruited by Lee Daniels were and are) would you chose to come down on the side of

• the teachers lobbying you and living in your district for higher wages or
• retired teachers who may or may not live in your district, when you know future legislators will have to come up with the pension money, not you?

= = = = =
These striking teachers are from Huntley School District 158. Last year they “settled” for 5.25%, with less in salary in future years, but the difference going to lessen their share of the current teacher pension burden.

After activist Pat Quinn got his Cutback Amendment to the Illinois Constitution passed in 1980, Johnsburg Democratic Party State Rep. Thomas J. Hanahan didn’t stick around McHenry County.

He moved to Park Ridge. I don’t know if that happened before or after his term ended in January 1983, but that’s the address I remember when he was on the payroll of Chicago Democrat Bill Laurino, one of his legislative contemporaries not negatively affected by the imposition of single member districts.

Hanahan knew he couldn’t get elected in McHenry County running one-on-one with a Republican so he abandoned his residence of convenience. (And, no one did until Jack Franks defeated appointed State Rep. Mike Brown after a bitter 1998 primary election with Steve Verr.)

The son of a carpenters union official, Hanahan had been told to move to McHenry County in preparation for the 1996 election cycle.

Rural Union’s Billy Giblin and he represented McHenry County after the 1964 bed sheet ballot, when reapportionment was not accomplished and all candidates ran statewide.

Both Republicans and Democrats slated candidates for two-thirds of the seats. The Democrats won the legislative contest with a slate headed by untested Adlai Stevenson III.

Republican A.B. McConnell of Woodstock was the odd man out in that 1964 election, not having had enough clout to be listed in the top half of his party’s candidates.

In 1966, when three-member districts again were drawn, Hanahan beat out Giblin, who served only one term, to become McHenry County’s Democrat.

His trade union buddies helped him build the house he lived in while serving in the Illinois General Assembly.

The district was composed of all of the county and points south, west and southwest into DeKalb. The other district included Grafton and Algonquin Township and everything straight east to Lake Michigan. I can’t remember if it was one or two township high.

One of the big issues in the 1971 General Assembly was the authorization of the unionization of teachers.

It was a key issue in 1972campaign, when I ran for the GOP nomination for state representative against former Belvidere Mayor (“Get More with Les”—really; that was what his cartop said) Les Cunningham and northern Dundee Township’s R. Bruce Waddell.

Waddell had won a special election when Dundee nursery owner Jack Hill was killed zipping his motorcycle around his business property at the northeast intersection of Routes 31 and 72 and hit his head on a pipe sticking off the back end of a truck. There was a closed casket.

One of Hill’s great admirers and supporters, McHenry’s Goldwater-inspired Tom Davis ran to replace him, but Waddell won.

At any rate, in the teacher unionization fight, Hanahan was on the side of the Chicago Teachers Union and its statewide affiliate, the Illinois Federation of Teachers. After all, those unionized teachers were connected with the AFL-CIO and the Illinois Education Association wasn’t.

Only the Woodstock High School District was composed of IFT members. All the other area district’s teachers were members of the IEA.

The IEA found an Algonquin attorney named Joseph Coleman. The IEA used him to “teach Tommy a lesson.” They put a precinct worker in every precinct and gave Hanahan the scare of his life.

The election turned out this way:

Cal Skinner – 72,395 1/2
Bruce Waddell – 66,395 1/2
Tom Hanahan – 53,848 1/2
Joe Coleman – 32,226 1/2

After that, Hanahan was much more responsive to the IEA’s desires and, while I don’t know this for a fact, probably was the bridge between the IFT and the IEA for the collective bargaining bill that eventually passed.

Part 2 Tomorrow

Elgin’s school district has a new superintendent named Jose Torres.

Elgin’s Courier-News had some headline fun Friday by entitling it’s page 2 article.

Unit District 46 has budget problems next year.

So Torres sent an email to teacher union leaders asking “if teachers would consider not taking their scheduled raises next school year.”

That would have saved about $10 million.

“That could have prevented more teacher positions from getting axed and potentially save the district millions of dollars,” the district spokesman said.

The headline summarizes the union reply:

“The union rejected the idea, and the school board Monday night gave formal approval to laying off more than 400 district staff members,” the article reports. 350 were teachers.

A Chicago Tribune article headline says 348.

“Our negotiated agreements and increased insurance costs will result in an estimated $17 million in salaries and benefits,” Torres told the Tribune. “Unfortunately, our revenue picture is bleak, and we do not expect any significant increases.”

“We have a contract and we’ll be back at the bargaining table in 13 months,” Elgin Teachers Association President Tim Davis told the Courier-News.

The January, 2008, three-year contract calls for raises based on the CPI, “ranging from 2.5% and 3.8%,” not including step and lane increases. Those are based on number of years worked and graduation education credits.

The increase in the Consumer Price Index this past year was one-tenth of one percent.

After finding the email from Harvard School Superintendent Lauri Tobias, I contacted State Senator Pam Althoff, whose name she invoked in her email to McHenry County school superintendents, and asked for her reaction.

Althoff called this morning. Here’s what she told me:

We were discussing financial constraints that many school districts were facing after the passage of the legislation and how it affects current contracts and their ability to meet educational demands.

What I offered to do was collaboratively gather some information.

I’m very supportive of that (the 6% cap). I voted for that.

The IEA (Illinois Education Association—the name of the biggest teachers’ union) went back and promoted and got passed 10 exceptions (to the 6% cap), which I also supported.

Harvard wishes more.

The conversation we had was about where to go and how to address this.

I explained to them that the IEA, when promoting supporting, promoting and ultimately passing the exceptions, agreed that would be all the activity and action that would occur with regard to the 6% cap for at least two years.

So, they would take at least a 2-year hiatus from addressing that subject.

It is our (and I’m talking about the General Assembly) position that you can hire experienced teachers for mentoring (or coaching) and pay them more or do any of those things that would affect the 6% cap.

It’s just that the state is not paying for it.

The school districts would just have to be responsible for paying for it themselves.

To go through an educational process, I told District 50 that we needed to have a larger collaborative effort to see if other schools are similarly hampered by this 6% cap.

The whole idea was to bring everybody together and talk about the issue.

I’m just trying to give them historical background and determine if there is a possibility of defining other exemptions, if they are appropriate…or whether it is just a lack of funds at the local level.

So, while the Harvard School District 50 superintendent and Harvard Education Association teachers’ union leader may be “launching a campaign to eliminate the six percent limitation on TRS [Teacher Retirement System] earnings,” Althoff is not supporting such a sweeping measure.

= = = = =
State Senator Pam Althoff is seen making a point when she spoke to the Crystal Lake Kiwanis Club at the Colonial Cafe. Here is a second article I wrote about what she said.

After finding the email from Harvard School Superintendent Lauri Tobias, I contacted State Senator Pam Althoff, whose name she invoked in her email to McHenry County school superintendents, and asked for her reaction.

Althoff called this morning. Here’s what she told me:

We were discussing financial constraints that many school districts were facing after the passage of the legislation and how it affects current contracts and their ability to meet educational demands.

What I offered to do was collaboratively gather some information.

I’m very supportive of that (the 6% cap). I voted for that.

The IEA (Illinois Education Association—the name of the biggest teachers’ union) went back and promoted and got passed 10 exceptions (to the 6% cap), which I also supported.

Harvard wishes more.

The conversation we had was about where to go and how to address this.

I explained to them that the IEA, when promoting supporting, promoting and ultimately passing the exceptions, agreed that would be all the activity and action that would occur with regard to the 6% cap for at least two years.

So, they would take at least a 2-year hiatus from addressing that subject.

It is our (and I’m talking about the General Assembly) position that you can hire experienced teachers for mentoring (or coaching) and pay them more or do any of those things that would affect the 6% cap.

It’s just that the state is not paying for it.

The school districts would just have to be responsible for paying for it themselves.

To go through an educational process, I told District 50 that we needed to have a larger collaborative effort to see if other schools are similarly hampered by this 6% cap.

The whole idea was to bring everybody together and talk about the issue.

I’m just trying to give them historical background and determine if there is a possibility of defining other exemptions, if they are appropriate…or whether it is just a lack of funds at the local level.

So, while the Harvard School District 50 superintendent and Harvard Education Association teachers’ union leader may be “launching a campaign to eliminate the six percent limitation on TRS [Teacher Retirement System] earnings,” Althoff is not supporting such a sweeping measure.

= = = = =
State Senator Pam Althoff is seen making a point when she spoke to the Crystal Lake Kiwanis Club at the Colonial Cafe. Here is a second article I wrote about what she said.

If you are one of those skeptical individuals who think teachers’ union leaders are sometimes less than truthful, here’s evidence to put your mind at ease.

All you have to do is read page 24 of the final signed Huntley teachers contract and compare it to the newsletter the IEA Region 54 sent to its teacher union members.

Agreement #1
The BOE and HEA will form a joint committee to review compensation for certified staff members include:

Current salary schedule – the committee will make recommendations to the Board of Education for alternative schedules.

Retirement compensations – the committee will recommend a salary structure for all retiring staff members (emphasis added).

Here’s what the recent IEA newsletter says about the settlement of the Huntley teachers contract:

“A Four Years at 6% agreement was worked out for retirees.  A joint committee will negotiate the language.  The Board will accept letters of Intent this spring and implement the 6% increases beginning in the 2009 school year.”

But there is no agreement in the Huntley contract to give retirees 6% raises.

There also is no implementation agreed upon. A 2009 implementation date is sheer fantasy written by the IEA as if it were true.

Teachers in other McHenry County school districts are apparently not supposed to find this out.

How would they find out?

They are supposed to be impressed with how great a job their IEA professional negotiators did in Huntley.

It’s easy to impress someone if you make up accomplishments.

Who’s going to be the wiser?

Why would teachers reading their union newsletter mistrust its author?

But, in Huntley’s case, what they wrote was fiction, rather than non-fiction.

What’s the chance of the IEA leaders ever getting caught and exposed in the media?

None because newspapers don’t assign reporters to cover a “teacher union beat.”

Local papers don’t even cover unions when they are sued in federal court.

It’s internal union business.

And, besides, with beats at papers like the Northwest Herald having been doubled, who has the time?

Huntley’s teachers going on strike certainly is the public’s business.

But some insight into how the IEA manipulates its teachers into thinking teachers in another district are specifically getting more, when it isn’t true, may be relevant and deserving of public scrutiny.

IEA Uniserve Director Susan Goudreau’s name is on the newsletter’s masthead. Goudreau was on the Huntley teachers’ negotiating team. Surely she knows what is in and not in the agreement.

Another interesting excerpt:

“The bargaining team is proud of the contract negotiated.”

This is especially interesting seeing how for a month after the teachers ratified the contract, the Huntley co-presidents wanted to renegotiate what they agreed to in writing.

Apparently union leaders can be “proud” and at the same time clamor for a contract “do over.”

The Board of Education got minimum monthly payments for both medical and dental insurance into the new contract, when there had been none. They add up to $240 per year. It’s safe to say that some teachers are very unhappy about that.

Don’t expect news of this to be in any IEA newsletter anytime soon, but there is no doubt the single teachers know.

Maybe bragging about something they didn’t get is common in teacher union newsletters.

Maybe the “Fair” in the IEA’s slogan of Fair, Competitive and Comparable means it’s fair for IEA leaders to not tell the truth to both the public and even its own teachers.

Apparently when teacher union leaders proclaim themselves “professionals” and “educators,” telling the truth isn’t part of their “professional” standard.

Maybe “educating” teachers with false information is par for the course.

If you are one of those skeptical individuals who think teachers’ union leaders are sometimes less than truthful, here’s evidence to put your mind at ease.

All you have to do is read page 24 of the final signed Huntley teachers contract and compare it to the newsletter the IEA Region 54 sent to its teacher union members.

Agreement #1
The BOE and HEA will form a joint committee to review compensation for certified staff members include:

Current salary schedule – the committee will make recommendations to the Board of Education for alternative schedules.

Retirement compensations – the committee will recommend a salary structure for all retiring staff members (emphasis added).

Here’s what the recent IEA newsletter says about the settlement of the Huntley teachers contract:

“A Four Years at 6% agreement was worked out for retirees.  A joint committee will negotiate the language.  The Board will accept letters of Intent this spring and implement the 6% increases beginning in the 2009 school year.”

But there is no agreement in the Huntley contract to give retirees 6% raises.

There also is no implementation agreed upon. A 2009 implementation date is sheer fantasy written by the IEA as if it were true.

Teachers in other McHenry County school districts are apparently not supposed to find this out.

How would they find out?

They are supposed to be impressed with how great a job their IEA professional negotiators did in Huntley.

It’s easy to impress someone if you make up accomplishments.

Who’s going to be the wiser?

Why would teachers reading their union newsletter mistrust its author?

But, in Huntley’s case, what they wrote was fiction, rather than non-fiction.

What’s the chance of the IEA leaders ever getting caught and exposed in the media?

None because newspapers don’t assign reporters to cover a “teacher union beat.”

Local papers don’t even cover unions when they are sued in federal court.

It’s internal union business.

And, besides, with beats at papers like the Northwest Herald having been doubled, who has the time?

Huntley’s teachers going on strike certainly is the public’s business.

But some insight into how the IEA manipulates its teachers into thinking teachers in another district are specifically getting more, when it isn’t true, may be relevant and deserving of public scrutiny.

IEA Uniserve Director Susan Goudreau’s name is on the newsletter’s masthead. Goudreau was on the Huntley teachers’ negotiating team. Surely she knows what is in and not in the agreement.

Another interesting excerpt:

“The bargaining team is proud of the contract negotiated.”

This is especially interesting seeing how for a month after the teachers ratified the contract, the Huntley co-presidents wanted to renegotiate what they agreed to in writing.

Apparently union leaders can be “proud” and at the same time clamor for a contract “do over.”

The Board of Education got minimum monthly payments for both medical and dental insurance into the new contract, when there had been none. They add up to $240 per year. It’s safe to say that some teachers are very unhappy about that.

Don’t expect news of this to be in any IEA newsletter anytime soon, but there is no doubt the single teachers know.

Maybe bragging about something they didn’t get is common in teacher union newsletters.

Maybe the “Fair” in the IEA’s slogan of Fair, Competitive and Comparable means it’s fair for IEA leaders to not tell the truth to both the public and even its own teachers.

Apparently when teacher union leaders proclaim themselves “professionals” and “educators,” telling the truth isn’t part of their “professional” standard.

Maybe “educating” teachers with false information is par for the course.