McHenry County Blog

The Illinois Policy Institute co-sponsored a candidates’ forum at McHenry County College. Here Sheriff’s candidates Gus Philpott, Mike Mahon and Keith Nygren answer questions.

The following was written by Scott Reeder, the journalist in residence at the Illinois Police Institute:

EDUCATING IN THE DARK

As a journalist, I have filed thousands of Freedom of Information Act requests with Illinois school districts and uncovered major personnel problems and cases of criminals teaching.

So please forgive me if I’m a bit touchy when I hear school districts want to make it more difficult for the public to hold them accountable – or even know what they are up to.

But that is exactly what would happen under a resolution from the Illinois Association of School Boards to change Illinois open records laws.

IASB Executive Director and former state lawmaker Roger Eddy noted that the resolution initially was passed by his members well before he took the helm of the organization this year. But he added it is something his members want.

“This doesn’t surprise me,” said Josh Sharp, a lobbyist for the Illinois Press Association.

“It’s typical of how public bodies in this state think they should be able to operate – with a special set of rules for themselves. Frankly, it’s a slap in the face to the taxpayers who pay their salaries. “

Adam Andrzejewski, founder of For the Good of Illinois, was more blunt.

“Groups such as these use tax dollars to lobby against the interests of taxpayers,” he said.

It works like this:

1. Member school districts use tax dollars to pay dues to IASB.
2. Then, Eddy and the association pay lobbyists to push legislation supported by the association. Sometimes, this legislation is aimed at keeping the public in the dark about how tax dollars are being used.

Here are some of the things the IASB’s FOIA resolution calls for:

• Increase allowable FOIA response time from 5 business days to 10 business days.
• Exclude official school breaks in business day response time.
• Allow denials for commercial purposes.
• Allow denials for any request that is deemed “unduly burdensome.”
• Allow a request to be denied if it is “unduly burdensome” to the public body if the public body deems compliance with the request would result in excessive response costs.
• Exempt employment applications of individuals who apply for high profile positions.
• Eliminate requirement that public bodies give a detailed legal explanation when indicating why they are claiming an exemption.
• Allow public bodies to seek review of a binding opinion of the Public Access Counselor in the county in which they are located.

GETTING THE DISCUSSION GOING

At least since the days Gov. Dan Walker, there have been calls for better disclosure laws to provide the public with more information on potential economic conflicts of interest of their elected officials.

And for the last year, the Better Government Association has been working behind the scenes to drum up support for a law that would require more information be provided in the Statements of Economic Interests that all elected officials are required to fill out.

Emily Miller, policy and government affairs coordinator for the BGA, said she hopes legislation that has been introduced will go a long way toward getting lawmakers to begin the debate on what should be disclosed.

“This isn’t a pie-in-the-sky bill,” she said. “I think we are being very pragmatic in what we are asking.”

The BGA said the bill would require officials to report:

• Assets valued at more than $10,000
• Additional sources of income in excess of $2,500
• Debts over $5,000 incurred by or owed to the filer, other than those owed to a financial institution.
• Lobbyists with whom the filer has an economic relationship
• Family members of the filer, including a spouse, child, step-child, parent, step-parent or sibling, who are lobbyists registered with any unit of government in Illinois
• Gifts with a value of $500 or more

The push to disclose if a lawmaker is related to a lobbyist is relatively new.

Last year, Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, got into a confrontation on the floor of the Illinois Senate with Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon.

McCarter had noted Sen. Jacobs sponsored legislation backed by Commonwealth Edison even though his father, Denny Jacobs, was a lobbyist retained by ComEd.

Here is what Denny Jacobs said Tuesday night when asked what he thought of the bill:

“As many —– —- times as The Dispatch and the Quad-City Times have written about me being a lobbyist, if people in Mike’s district don’t know it already we have a real problem.”

Here’s the press release:

IASB Board Names Executive Director-Select

February 27, 2012

The Illinois Association of School Boards will have a new executive director later this year.

State Rep. and School Supt. Roger Eddy moves from legislator to lobbyist as the game of revolving chairs continues. Photo credit: Statehouse News Service.

Roger Eddy of Hustonville was chosen by the Association board of directors at their quarterly meeting Feb. 26.

Eddy, 53, will assume the position July 1. Eddy will replace Michael D. Johnson, who will retire June 30 after nearly 12 years as the Association’s CEO.

“This has been a very long, but very productive process,” said IASB Past President Joseph Alesandrini, who led the board’s search committee.

“We had many qualified candidates and we are confident that we made the right choice to lead the Association and its member school districts,” he continued. “The transition will be completed over the next four months, which should give the executive director-select, board of directors, staff, and members adequate time to prepare and adjust to the change in leadership.”

Eddy has spent the last 15 years as superintendent of Hutsonville CUSD 1. His career includes 31 years in education, as a superintendent, principal and teacher. Since 2003, Eddy has also served five terms as a State Representative in the Illinois General Assembly.

“I am very honored to be chosen to represent IASB,” Eddy said. “This is a great opportunity and challenge. This is a great association and I look forward to serving in this capacity.”

Eddy is married to Rebecca Eddy. The couple has five children and two grandchildren.

The executive director-select was reared in Newark and attended Newark public schools. He graduated from Northern Illinois University in 1981 and earned his master’s degree in 1986 and specialist’s degree in 1996 from Eastern Illinois University.

As executive director, Eddy will lead a staff of 75 full- and part-time staff members in the Association’s Springfield and Lombard offices. He will be responsible for all Association operations and represent its positions in state and national public school management policy on behalf of 852 member districts and nearly 6,000 elected Illinois school board members.

As executive director-select, Eddy will be the Association’s sixth full-time CEO since 1943. He will begin the transition soon, according to Alesandrini.

“Roger will get to know our board and staff and eventually all of our member districts. I know that Dr. Johnson will be a great assistant in that process,” he said.

During Johnson’s tenure at IASB, the Association has seen its staff more than double, its membership increase to all-time highs and the completion of several capital construction programs. Alesandrini also credited Johnson for his entrepreneurial fundraising ability and for developing state and national partnerships.

Johnson, who plans to work with Ronald McDonald House Charities in his retirement, said he has worked with Eddy often over the past 12 years.

“I have known Roger for many years and he has been a champion for public education as a state legislator. I know as executive director he will be a champion for the Association and its member school boards,” Johnson said.

The e xecutive director-select will be the Association’s sixth full-time executive director since 1943. Past executives include Robert M. Cole (1943-1968), B.B. Burgess (1969-1973), Harold P. Seamon (1973-1989), Wayne L. Sampson (1989-2000), and Johnson (2000-2012).

Search process

The IASB board of directors launched a national search for the position in February 2011, after Johnson formally notified the board of his intentions. Applications were accepted until Sep. 30, and according to Alesandrini, there were many inquiries and applications received from across the U.S.

Criteria for the new executive director were developed in part from surveys taken of IASB staff and the Association board of directors, division officers, local board presidents and the Illinois Statewide School Management Alliance partners.

The criteria indicated that candidates should have “the appropriate education and experience in organizational leadership, working with a volunteer board, knowledge of major issues facing public education, strong communication skills, and the ability to work with diverse cultures of rural, suburban and urban constituents.”

The search committee, chaired by Alesandrini, included the following directors: then-vice president Carolyne Brooks, then-treasurer Dane Tippett, Southwestern division; Ben Anderson, Northwest; Karen Fisher, Starved Rock; Tom Neeley, Central Illinois Valley; Roger Pfister, Shawnee; Dale Hansen, Three Rivers; Joanne Osmond, Lake; Rosemary Swanon, DuPage; and Joanne Zendol, West Cook.

Alesandrini said the search committee screened internal and external candidates and narrowed the list for potential interviews. Finalist interviews took place in December and January. The two finalist candidates were interviewed by the board of directors on Feb. 25 in Chicago.

“We are very pleased to successfully conclude this process,” Alesandrini said. “We believe that the broad representation and diversity of membership on our board of directors assures that we have made the best decision possible on behalf of our entire membership.”

= = = = =

The current Chief Executive, Michael D. Johnson, retired, as far as the Teachers Retirement System is concerned, in 2008. His last contribution to TRS was $30,141 in the 2007-2008 school year based on reportable earnings of $320,656.

To read my take, click here.

Double-dipping State Rep. and School Superintendent Roger Eddy has an offer to go to taxeater heaven.

Frireworks in Northern Illinois prompted by a hoped for resignation in Southern Illinois.

The tax hiking advocate and transparency opponent has released a statement which I found in the Decatur Herald-Review via a link from Dave Diersen’s GOPUSA Illinois which you see below:

“The (Illinois Association of School Boards) has asked me to serve as their new executive director beginning on July 1. While final details regarding the position have not been resolved, I do expect them to finalize soon, and as a result I am suspending my champaign for state representative effective immediately.”

It’s time for fireworks for those who are on the taxpayers’ side of the equation.

How important is this race?

Tom Cross thinks it is important enough to tell contributors to Eddy’s opponent that they will be “persona non grata” in his office.

That’s what I’ve been told anyway.

Eddy seems to have replaced Bill Black as Spokesman for Republicans in House debates.

This is a man who has received $60,000 from the Illinois Eduction Association during his current campaign.

Other taxeaters contributing include

• $12,000 – Illinois Federation of Teachers
• $5,000 – University Professionals of Illinois AFT AFL-CIO PAC
• $3,000 – Illinois School Administrators
• $2,500 – Illinois Retired Teachers Association
• $1,000 – Citizens for Jim Edgar
• $500 – The Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education

Eddy is being challenged by Republicans Kevin Garner of Toledo and Brad Halbrook of Shebyville.

Garnger had $269 at the end of December.

Halbrook’s first Illinois State Board of Elections filing was for $20,000 from the We Mean Business PAC, followed by $5,000 from For the Good of Illinois, $10,000 from Pioneer Oil’s Mr. and Mrs. Don Jones, $2,000 from Eagle Forum Illinois State PAC, $3,000 from Adam Andrzejewski, $1,000 from Unique Home Properties, and $1,000 from Deborah Dunn.

= = = = =
The current Chief Executive, Michael D. Johnson, retired, as far as the Teachers Retirement System is concerned, in 2008. His last contribution to TRS was $30,141 in the 2007-2008 school year based on reportable earnings of $320,656.

Not only are townships and municipalities using taxpayer dollars to lobby against the interests of their taxpayers, so are school boards.

And they are all paying for their lobbying with taxpayer-financed dues.

Read what is posted on the Illinois Association of School Boards’ web site:

ACTION NEEDED ON PTELL LEGISLATION

The House Revenue and Finance Committee approved a bill that will significantly limit a school district’s access to local property tax revenues. For school districts in those counties that are under the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), commonly referred to as property tax caps, HB 3793 (Franks, D-Woodstock) would limit taxing districts to zero growth if property values are declining overall. Specifically, it p rovides that, if the total equalized assessed value (EAV) of all taxable property in the taxing district for the current levy year is less than the total EAV of all taxable property in the taxing district for the previous levy year, then the extension limitation is (a) 0% or (b) the rate of increase approved by voters.

The bill was approved on a 6-1-1 vote in the committee and was sent to the full House of Representatives for consideration. A vote will likely be taken on the bill today (Wednesday) or Thursday.

School administrators and board members are urged to call their State Representative and ask for a “no” vote on HB 3793.

The bill will directly affect school districts in property tax-capped counties by not allowing for any increase in the property tax extension, ignoring escalating budget factors that are beyond the control of the school district such as insurance programs (property, liability, unemployment, workers’ compensation), employee benefits, fuel supplies, food for lunch program, etc.

Indirectly, every school district in the state could be affected as access to local revenues is taken into account in the school funding formula. The “double whammy” provision, which provides additional state money to school districts under property tax caps that cannot access the full amount of local property valuation, could increase dramatically if HB 3793 is enacted. Shifting additional resources to fund the “double whammy” provision will further shortchange the state aid formula which provides the majority of funding for most school districts as well as funding for mandated categorical grants. State aid and categorical funding is already being prorated for the current fiscal year.

In an Illinois Community College Trustees Association report supplied to McHenry County College trustees is a little item that would go a long way to removing restrictions imposed by the Property Tax Cap.

See if you can figure out what this proposal would do:

“Improve the Property Tax Limitation Law

“Amend the current law to allow extensions to increase by the Employment Cost Index (currently the Consumer Price index) or 5%, whichever is least.”

The community college trustees join the Illinois Association of School Boards in asking for this large hole in the tax cap. The proposal would tie the tax cap to the “employment cost index,” which tracks changes in workers’ salaries. Now, the tax cap is tied to what it costs taxpayers to live, the consumer price index.

If passed, the result would be dramatic. If the legislation had been passed in 2003, when I first saw it, for instance, instead of being able to increase the amount taken from property owners (and, indirectly, renters) by 1.7%, schools and community colleges—or maybe even all tax districts—would have been allowed to increase their “tax take” by over twice as much—3.7%.

School officials are disturbed that when voters pass a tax rate hike referendum, the tax cap often permits schools from collecting the voter-approved tax rate from their tax bases.

The reason is that the tax base or the assessed valuation often increases more than the rate of inflation.

If home values in a tax district go up 5% in one year, for instance, as they have in many suburbs until quite recently, the school district is not allowed to take the entire 5% inflationary increase.

That means the tax rate goes down.

The school still receives whatever the percentage increase the tax cap allows.

The fact that tax districts regularly did capture this complete real estate inflationary increase during the 1980’s is one of the reasons tax caps were enacted.

What the schools want is a partial return to the days when their tax collections can exceed the rate of general inflation.

Other school districts have been unsuccessful in convincing their voters that tax hikes are necessary. Modifying the tax cap the way the Community College Trustees and School Board Association advocates would obviously make it easier to get more money, even in the face of voter rejection.

Of more merit is the Community College Trustees Association desire to be able to assess developer impact fees to support construction needed to house additional students…assuming additional classrooms are needed in an increasingly computerized learning environment.

And do you know what the increase in the CPI was for the last twelve months?

You can find that out and what the implications are to tax districts and taxpayers here.

In an Illinois Community College Trustees Association report supplied to McHenry County College trustees is a little item that would go a long way to removing restrictions imposed by the Property Tax Cap.

See if you can figure out what this proposal would do:

“Improve the Property Tax Limitation Law

“Amend the current law to allow extensions to increase by the Employment Cost Index (currently the Consumer Price index) or 5%, whichever is least.”

The community college trustees join the Illinois Association of School Boards in asking for this large hole in the tax cap. The proposal would tie the tax cap to the “employment cost index,” which tracks changes in workers’ salaries. Now, the tax cap is tied to what it costs taxpayers to live, the consumer price index.

If passed, the result would be dramatic. If the legislation had been passed in 2003, when I first saw it, for instance, instead of being able to increase the amount taken from property owners (and, indirectly, renters) by 1.7%, schools and community colleges—or maybe even all tax districts—would have been allowed to increase their “tax take” by over twice as much—3.7%.

School officials are disturbed that when voters pass a tax rate hike referendum, the tax cap often permits schools from collecting the voter-approved tax rate from their tax bases.

The reason is that the tax base or the assessed valuation often increases more than the rate of inflation.

If home values in a tax district go up 5% in one year, for instance, as they have in many suburbs until quite recently, the school district is not allowed to take the entire 5% inflationary increase.

That means the tax rate goes down.

The school still receives whatever the percentage increase the tax cap allows.

The fact that tax districts regularly did capture this complete real estate inflationary increase during the 1980’s is one of the reasons tax caps were enacted.

What the schools want is a partial return to the days when their tax collections can exceed the rate of general inflation.

Other school districts have been unsuccessful in convincing their voters that tax hikes are necessary. Modifying the tax cap the way the Community College Trustees and School Board Association advocates would obviously make it easier to get more money, even in the face of voter rejection.

Of more merit is the Community College Trustees Association desire to be able to assess developer impact fees to support construction needed to house additional students…assuming additional classrooms are needed in an increasingly computerized learning environment.

And do you know what the increase in the CPI was for the last twelve months?

You can find that out and what the implications are to tax districts and taxpayers here.