McHenry County Blog

Huntley School District 158’s Superintendent John Burkey got about a $40,000 salary increase to come to Huntley in 2006.

In this fourth year as Superintendent his salary currently is $178,000.

He began in Huntley at $145,000.

After three years of raises, they added $33,000 to his starting salary.

When the board of education voted for a new contract for Burkey at January’s board meeting, they gave him an extra week’s vacation.  The vote was 5-1.  Kevin Gentry wasn’t present for the meeting and Aileen Seedorf voted “No.”

Unlike classroom teachers in Huntley, all of Burkey’s personal contributions toward his pension don’t come out of Burkey’s paycheck. Not a penny as far as I can tell.

Maybe this is not unusual.

There are districts where the taxpayers pay not only the required school district’s contribution to the Downstate Teachers Retirement System, but what started out as the employee share.

When you take the value for the benefits of insurance (well over $20,000) and add the personal contributions to Burkey’s pension that he normally should be paying for, the value of Burkey’s new contract next year is well past $210,000.

If you were pulling down a salary of about $105,000 in June, 2006, that’s not much of a financial sacrifice next year. And, Burkey had a free trip to China (not paid for by the district).

Board member Kim Skaja wrote on Huntley’s Neighbors,

“He started with a cut in pay and the pay was then restored as he gained experience.”

Let’s see,

• Year 1   2006 – 2007   $ 145,000
• Year 2   2007 – 2008   $155,000
• Year 3   2008 – 2009   $166,000
• Year 4   2009 – 2010   $ 178,000

Doesn’t look as if Supt. Burkey ever received a “cut in pay,” as Skaja says.

He received a large $40,000 increase in compensation upon getting his first Superintendency in Huntley.

I fail to see how that is “a cut in pay.”

Not in a small one.

Not in a medium sized one.

Burkey now has a three-year contract paying a minimum salary of $178,000 a year each year.

Door-to-door leafleting.

Pretty basic politics.

And some Special Education Moms were doing it this afternoon in neighborhoods around town.

With a photo of Superintendent John Burkey, taken by yours truly, the broadside’s headline was

Our Superintendent wants special ed money spent on filing cabinets to help our kids learn.

Bet your Superintendent doesn’t do that!

In the leaflet seen above (click to enlarge), the Moms talk of politely asking, pleading, literally begging, and almost groveling to get Burkey to listen.

“It’s gone from giving us the stone-ears treatment to where Supt. Burkey now wants our board to approve nonsense.”

Citing the approximately $100,000 being spent on filing cabinets, office supplies and equipment, plus an expensive reading program the Moms don’t want, they explain that still there is “no option B and option C alternatives.“

“We disagree with Supt. Burkey’s priorities and judgment about spending large sums of special ed money that won’t help special ed children learn. This is personal for us. It’s our children. But frankly in our opinion, many of his recommendations reflect terrible educational judgment and a callous insensitivity to our children’s learning needs.”

One is tempted to ask, “How do they really feel?”

The message asks for people to attend Thursday night’s meeting at 7 and gives email addresses:

• sgreen@district158.com
• kgentry@district158.com
• ddrzal@district158.com
• ptroy@district158.com
• aseedorf@district158.com

Despite the hopeful words from board member Kim Skaja, the Moms seem to write her and fellow veteran official Mike Skala off, referring to them as “rubber stamp board members,” who “want to give Supt. Burkey another long contract with lots more money.”

This is the firth and final installment of a too long article about the discussion of spending $800,000 of special ed money allocated to Huntley School District 158 this year as a result of the Federal stimulus program. The other stories are here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

Board member Paul Troy brought up the question of staff training. He found $8,000 explicitly listed.

It turns out there is more, but it was not identified in the budget document. It was bundled with other identified expenditures in various line items.

Clearly exasperated by this point, Superintendent John Burkey asked,
“What do you think it should be?

“Tell us.

“We’ll make it look like that.”

Troy suggested 5%, saying he “would also like to see the general education teachers get it, too.”

“It’s already there,” Burkey replied.

“I want the regular education staff to understand the needs of the special ed (kids),” interjected veteran board member Mike Skala. “They don’t have a complete understanding of what it means to be special ed.

“If you tell me that’s what’s going to happen, great, and I’ll theoretically hold you accountable.”

“If that’s what you want, it’s not in here,” Burkey observed.

“General teachers don’t know what to do when a kid has a melt down,” Seedorf said. “Don’t call the kid a name. Don’t insult the kid. Is it impossible to send down a memo that says, ‘If you have a problem with a kid, call Cheryl and (another person)?”

Assistant Special Ed Director Karen Alward revealed that she was “doing Special Ed 101 classes” in each school.

As the meeting moved toward its conclusion, Skaja concluded, “Everything we’ve brought up has been addressed.”

Kevin Gentry disagreed.

“I think people want a different allocation, but can’t (come up with it).”

“I don’t feel comfortable spending $500,000 on Read 180,” Don Drzal added.

Referring back to Comptroller Mark Altmayer’s statement that he would order the Read 180 licenses as soon as the plan were approved, Skaja said,

“Do it slowly, then go forward with more.

“As soon as it’s approved Mr. Altmayer said he’ll filed a purchase order.

“That’s the one item I wouldn’t approve.”

“I’m fine,” Troy said, seemingly changing his mind after Skala spoke.

Maybe someone else can figure out how the board will vote when given more detail in the face of a December 1st filing opportunity, but I have no idea.

What I took away from the meeting was that there were not a lot of suggestions the special ed staff professionals made that could not be fulfilled with the money that was available.

If some Read 180 money were to be eliminated by the board, it made me wonder if the Special Ed Moms, who were filled with suggestions at the July 14th town hall-style meeting with administrators and board members I attended, might come up with their own priority list for spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

Surely, some of them know enough about the subject to make rational suggestions of what would help their children.

= = = = =

Huntley School District 158 School Board member Paul Troy is on top.  Superintendent John Burkey can be seen just below.

Five of the seven school board members can be seen in the next shot, plus Supt. Burkey.  From left to right are Don Drzal, Paul Troy, Shawn Green, John Burkey, Kevin Gentry and Kim Skaja.  Hidden behind Skaja sits Mike Skala.  Aileen Seedorf sits to the right of Troy.

This is the fourth installment of the discussion last Thursday night at the Huntley School District 158 board meeting on spending Federal stimulus money under the IDEA grant program. Here are links to the prior stories: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

When we left off, newly-elected member Don Drzal was trying to find out what the special ed administrators would spend money now destined for Read 180, if the hoard decided to cut it back to a pilot program.

Assistant Special Education Director Karen Alward seemed to have already provided the answer in an interchange with board member Kevin Gentry.

Gentry was trying to find out how the special ed administrators had gotten down to the $800,000 in first year money that is available.

“We really didn’t have to say, ‘No,” to anything,” Alward told the board. (Alward is the one looking at the camera in this only shot that got all four special ed administrators’ faces.)

Later it was explained that some suggestions, like providing gift cards to students for accomplishing something, were made that just were not legal under the guidelines.

Board member Aileen Seedorf, who seems to be the patron saint of the Special Ed Moms waiting until last.

“I believe the parents would have expected something in this year,” she said.

“Is that correct?”

“Yes, “The Moms answered.

Seedorf asked about the classroom furniture. Board President Shawn Green had a similar concern.

Kevin Gentry took offense at what he thought was a Seedorf’s accusation that regular students were treated better than special ed students.

“If you’re right, we need to do something about it.”

Green agreed: “If you have specific concerns they need to be addressed?”

Seedorf repeated several times that the committee she has proposed could have investigated that line of though, but the board majority had decided not to allow it.

She burrowed in on Read 180 and took a jab at one of her fellow board members.

“I’m not interested in running for senate.”

“I’m not interested in running for senate either,” Gentry replied.

“Good for you,” Seedorf countered.

Seedorf wanted to know if the Read 180 pilot program “could be pared down to 15-20.

“How many do you need to buy to do a small study before you drop big bucks on this?”

Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz replied that they could also be used as part of an RIT initiative, that is, with at risk kids.

“Let’s get 30 licenses and see how the kids do,” board member Paul Troy added. He suggested that would be better than “buying 360 license today.”

“We need to give direction to the administration and move forward,” long-time board member Mike Skala said.

“We can’t just buy 360 licenses and go forward not caring whether they work or not,” Troy interjected.

“If the administration wants to change it and come back to us, I’m fine with that…but not the opposite,” Skala replied.

The board decided to ask for more detail on the Read 180 line item.

“We all trust you. You’re all professionals,” veteran board member Kim Skaja added.

More tomorrow.

= = = = =
Read the whole series:

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 1

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 2

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 3

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 4

Huntley School District 158 Special Ed Moms Draw Blood, Board Divided – Part 5

District 158 administrators were ticked.

What did board member Aileen Seedorf ask for that got administrators up in a huff?

At the last meeting, she asked for a copy of the ice melt bid spec to read when administrators recommended throwing out all of the bidders.

Not to read during the meeting, but to have it sent to her after the meeting.

She also asked to be able to read the correspondence from the vendors to the district.

What were the administrators’ replies during the meeting to Seedorf?

Provide a written request for the information.

In what was an exchange that went on for ten minutes or longer, administrators refused to agree to provide the documents to Seedorf without a written request.

Outright stubbornly refused. Not once or twice, but again and again.

Is there any other group of school administrators around–or in all of Illinois for that matter–who arbitrarily insist a board member give them a written request to obtain a set of public bid specs?

Superintendent John Burkey was among those obstinately refusing to do so during the meeting.

Later during the same meeting, Seedorf asked how it is the superintendent wasn’t making a recommendation whether the district should be doing a survey on a new high school or expansion now or waiting a year.

Board member Kevin Gentry jumped to Burkey’s defense with

“Why would you want the Superintendent to make a recommendation?”

To which Mrs. Seedorf replied,

“Because he’s being paid to do this.”

It seemed the other administrators were amused.

Are there any other school boards in Illinois where an “experienced” board member asks publicly why a board member would want the Superintendent to make a recommendation? This is Gentry’s third year on Huntley’s school board.

The empty seat to Burkey’s right is that of Board President Shawn Green.

When the meeting ended, after telling me that President Barack Obama would not be granted access to classrooms in District 158, he hurried to speak to Seedorf.

In mid-May, the Huntley School Board was approached by some disappointed and frustrated parents.

At both the Finance and the board meeting, the moms of kids with special needs felt empowered to speak about the education their kids are or are NOT getting.

You see, two key special education employees jumped ship.

The parents seemed to think there no longer was light at the end of the tunnel.
How Federal economic stimulus money will be spent is at stake, too.

The Huntley School District is getting $1.5 million. The money has to be spent over a two year period.

A loophole, however, allows half of it to be drained to other than new or additional special education uses.

The administration wants to spend a rather large amount of money on a reading software that they have not piloted or know if it will be effective with special ed students.

The reading software is being used for regular students now. This makes it look like the software the district will be buying is software that would normally be bought this year to expand its use with more regular ed students.

The reasoning for diverting the money is that Federal mandates for so many years have been unfunded. Maybe “underfunded” would be a better word.

During comments the parents made a lot of interesting points. One became emotional at the board meeting and pretty much ignored Board President Shawn Green’s attempt to shut her down after a certain amount of time.

Board member Aileen Seedorf was aggressive in the discussion, even pulling out a hat and put ting it on mid-discussion, using it as a prop to make a point.

Seedorf pushed for a standing Special Ed Board committee, but the the board majority would not allow it.

In any event, signatures are being sought on the following petition:

119 had signed when I looked at it mid-day Thursday.

You need a quorum for a board meeting.

Right now the Huntley school board has only one board member as a carryover for its Finance Committee.

That would be Kevin Gentry.

Hard to have a quorum with one committee member.

Finance Committee members Tony Quagliano and Larry Snow are no longer on the board.

Replacement members to the Finance Committee have not yet been appointed and approved by the Board. Board approval is required by the board’s policy. Such a vote of approval can only occur at a scheduled board meeting and that hasn’t happened yet.

Will the new board members pretend it doesn’t matter if the new board follows board policy or the Open Meetings Act?

Board member Aileen Seedorf alerted the board to a similar situation at the last Committee of the Whole meeting.

She pointed out the Legislative Committee could not convene because Snow, the chairman, and Quagliano were no longer on that committee. The board agreed to not officially have the Legislative Committee that evening.

For those at home hoping to follow your school district’s finances, well, you can’t. At least not for now. Neither the Building nor Finance Committee board packets are posted online.

Shawn Green was elected Board President again, but he missed his first Committee of the Whole meeting.

Last night a contract negotiation meeting was held between Huntley’s teachers union and the negotiating committee for the Board. Absent was the administration. Apparently the Superintendent, Controller and Human Resources Director all had other more important things to do.

Board President Shawn Green was very vocal that the union should discuss their proposals in public.

Good for him!

Illinois should follow Florida’s example and conduct all union negotiations in public.

Apparently the union wants to bring its proposal for early retirement benefits to the board in secret session.

If the teachers union’s proposal has merit, then why wouldn’t the teachers want to present it in public?

Is the answer a bit obvious?

The agreement between the Board and union says that on consensus the proposal will be brought to the board.

Has there been a consensus?

The agreement also calls for consideration of an alternate salary schedule plan. (For information about past salary hikes, go here.)

With what they won after their strike, why would the Huntley Education Association want to change anything in the salary schedule?

The teachers obviously want their retirement benefits sweetened, but they don’t seem to want to talk about the current really sweet deal they have on automatic salary increases.

The union is refusing to talk about changing salary schedule.

The current longevity step increase is 3 1/2%–quite high when compared to other schools. That means starting salaries for teachers might have to be lower than surrounding districts to compensate for the later huge automatic step increases.

Of course, starting salaries are easier for reporters to understand than step increases.

And how much sense does it make to pay extra money for double masters’ degrees?

That’s in the salary schedule.

Unless increased performance can be linked to a second master’s degree, does it make sense to pay extra for it?

Just asking.

= = = = =
The photo of the teachers in HEA shirts was taken the night they confronted the board.

The Huntley School District 158 has a new controller and he is a CPA.

That’s short for Certified Public Accountant.

His name is Mark Altmayer.

It probably didn’t hurt that two members of the current board— Tony Quagliano and Kevin Gentry—are also CPA’s.

It’s my experience that people doing the hiring feel most comfortable with employees with similar educations or job experience.

But, having prepared budgets for the United States Bureau of the Budget under the Lyndon Johnson administration, and served on the Legislative Audit Commission and Illinois House Appropriations Committees, I’ve a little experience in that field myself.

I know padding when I see and it surely looks like Larry Snow has found some that is hard to explain.

In last year’s budget there was $30,000 for consulting services for the Fiscal Office. Last year District 158 seemed to have revolving chief fiscal officers. Money was needed to pay these folks.

It isn’t needed now that Altmayer is on the payroll.

But, it’s still there and Larry Snow, not taking a defeated candidates typical “slacking off while on the way out of office” attitude, found the blatant padding of Altmayer’s budget.

Superintendent John Burkey, who is ultimately responsible for the budget presented, didn’t catch it either.

So, not only was the second version of the budget fatally incomplete because it had no ending balance or deficit, as the case might be, it was padded in places that Snow found.

Burkey characterized the budget as “tight.”

Anyone could have predicted such tightness after the huge salary increases (over 18% over three years) granted teachers. Huge in comparison to the one-tenth of one percent increase in the Cost of Living this past year.

So, with a “tight” budget, wouldn’t you think the budget guy and those reviewing his work would put those green eyes hades and search for unneeded expenditures?

Snow pointed out some interesting discrepancies that needed correcting.

Among the most “flagrant foul” (to borrow a basketball term) items was budgeting (page 21) for $30,000 for consulting services for the Fiscal Office.

Snow had questioned this item among others by email prior to last Thursday’s meeting. Neither Burkey nor Altmayer responded to Snow’s question on this one, so he asked about it at the public meeting.

Snow’s instincts were right.

This was money budgeted in the prior fiscal year to pay for an Interim Chief Financial Officer and the new controller carried it over. Maybe he was trying to pad his own budget. He surely should have known that his payroll check took the place of that.

Burkey admitted at the meeting that’s what the money was for and shouldn’t be in next year’s budget. It will be interesting to see if it is taken out or left in.

This discovery also should lead an oversight group like the school board to look for other padding in the administrative budget.

But, considering their disdain of Snow, I somehow doubt it will.

While he probably should have been campaigning, Snow questioned other items.

Both ahead of time and at the meeting he couldn’t get answers.

Administrators budgeted less money for reading specialists at two schools, but couldn’t tell Snow what their personnel plans were that reflected the reductions.

Snow asked for clarification to an emailed reply he said he didn’t understand. Burkey said he didn’t understand the answer either.

No one had an answer.

Which leads to an obvious question:

Who is inserting the numbers into Huntley’s line item budget?

Snow pointed out how District telephone expense is once again being over-budgeted.

Padding the budget in this account is apparently an annual event for district administrators.

Snow got “carefully review” into board policy concerning the documents submitted to the board. That change was stimulated when former finance guy Stan Hall submitted budgets whose numbers went up and down like a yo-yo.

And, guess what else is missing from the budget.

Salary hikes for administrators.

Maybe that was why the budget padding Snow discovered – and maybe other unnecessary planned expenditures – were included in the budget.

I wrote about how a measure of inflation, a cost of living index in the form of the Consumer Price Index, has been only 1.1% for the last 12 months.

In that article Friday, I suggested tax district officials would be saying,

So would have Huntley School District 158 teachers had not three school board members more friendly to the teachers than the taxpayers made a last minute change in the salary offer.

When District 158 made its “Last, Best and Final” Offer to the Huntley’s teachers union, the salary offer was for indexing the 2nd and 3rd year using the Consumer Price Index.

Specifically the increase would be the CPI, plus 0.65%.

Chief Negotiator Larry Snow had full support of the Board for this.

The Board negotiating committee was six members–

Snow, Aileen Seedorf, Board President Shawn Green, plus the two C.P.A.’s, Tony Quagliano and Kevin Gentry, and Kim Skaja, who had voted for huge increases for the teachers in past contracts.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Snow and Seedorf were the backbone of the “financially responsible” part of this Board.

Normally it would take a 4-2 vote to reverse a six board member decision.

I said, “normally.”

Because Board President Sean Green showed up for only five hours or so during the last 150 hours of contract negotiations, Green was “Absent” literally and for all practical purposes.

This made it possible for a 3-2 vote to get the CPI index removed from the Board’s final negotiating position.

It was a given that Kim Skaja would go along with most anything that favored the teachers’ union.

So when Quagliano insisted on removing the CPI and going to fixed percentages for years two and three, and sidekick Gentry agreed, the die was cast.

When the two Certified Public Accountant’s caved, Skaja’s quickly agreed and the concession was made.

Caving in will turn out to be financially costly.

How bad?

The fixed percent raises were 5.25% for most teachers.

If you are optimistic about December’s CPI number then the total for the year may be 1.1%.

That would have meant the Board’s formula would have generated 1.75% raises. But there was a floor of 2% in the language.

So, there’s basically a difference of 3 and a quarter percentage points.

Under what the “Last, Best and Final” offer, next year’s raise would have turned out to be 2%. More than what it appears the cost of living will increase, but not the 5.25% Quagliano, Gentry and Skaja inserted at the last moment.

This translates into about $1 million a year in extra concessions than what was in the “Last, Best and Final” offer.

Ouch.

In simple terms, to balance the budget next year this means a million dollars of other spending (for additional class room teachers, for example) can’t happen.

Not just for one twelve month period, but again and again as the extra million dollars becomes a baseline for extra teacher salary expense year after year.

Word is that Huntley District 158 wants to hire a Certified Public Accountant for its next a chief financial officer.

Protecting the interests of taxpayers is not automatic just because one has passed that exam. Think Arthur Anderson and Enron for an extreme example of that.

The auditor who got the District 158’s audit numbers wrong in 2007 was a C.P.A..

The previous auditor was a C.P.A. and he got the numbers wrong in previous years as well.

Quagliano’s, Gentry’s and Skaja’s cave in, in this instance, will cause an automatic financial cave in for next year’s budget and the one after that.

Making this concession didn’t even prevent a strike.

The CPI is not in formula and wasn’t in the last weekend’s proposals to the HEA and they called the strike anyway.

That tells you how little good the C.P.A.s’ concession actually did at the time.

It wasn’t used to “make a deal;” it was a giveaway.

Both Snow and Seedorf were outvoted in caucus.

The “Last Best and Final” offer made sense as a financial structure.

Maybe if Green had bothered to show up he could have made it a 3-3 vote and the original proposal would be in the contract.

= = = = =
Huntley School District 158 Board members Larry Snow and Aileen Seedorf are seen top right. To the left and slightly below is School Board President Shawn Green. Below right is Kim Skaja. Below left are Kevin Gentry and Tony Quagliano. The picketers were found outside the western entrance to the Red Barn Road campus on the first day of the Huntley Education Association’s strike.

I wrote about how a measure of inflation, a cost of living index in the form of the Consumer Price Index, has been only 1.1% for the last 12 months.

In that article Friday, I suggested tax district officials would be saying,

So would have Huntley School District 158 teachers had not three school board members more friendly to the teachers than the taxpayers made a last minute change in the salary offer.

When District 158 made its “Last, Best and Final” Offer to the Huntley’s teachers union, the salary offer was for indexing the 2nd and 3rd year using the Consumer Price Index.

Specifically the increase would be the CPI, plus 0.65%.

Chief Negotiator Larry Snow had full support of the Board for this.

The Board negotiating committee was six members–

Snow, Aileen Seedorf, Board President Shawn Green, plus the two C.P.A.’s, Tony Quagliano and Kevin Gentry, and Kim Skaja, who had voted for huge increases for the teachers in past contracts.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Snow and Seedorf were the backbone of the “financially responsible” part of this Board.

Normally it would take a 4-2 vote to reverse a six board member decision.

I said, “normally.”

Because Board President Sean Green showed up for only five hours or so during the last 150 hours of contract negotiations, Green was “Absent” literally and for all practical purposes.

This made it possible for a 3-2 vote to get the CPI index removed from the Board’s final negotiating position.

It was a given that Kim Skaja would go along with most anything that favored the teachers’ union.

So when Quagliano insisted on removing the CPI and going to fixed percentages for years two and three, and sidekick Gentry agreed, the die was cast.

When the two Certified Public Accountant’s caved, Skaja’s quickly agreed and the concession was made.

Caving in will turn out to be financially costly.

How bad?

The fixed percent raises were 5.25% for most teachers.

If you are optimistic about December’s CPI number then the total for the year may be 1.1%.

That would have meant the Board’s formula would have generated 1.75% raises. But there was a floor of 2% in the language.

So, there’s basically a difference of 3 and a quarter percentage points.

Under what the “Last, Best and Final” offer, next year’s raise would have turned out to be 2%. More than what it appears the cost of living will increase, but not the 5.25% Quagliano, Gentry and Skaja inserted at the last moment.

This translates into about $1 million a year in extra concessions than what was in the “Last, Best and Final” offer.

Ouch.

In simple terms, to balance the budget next year this means a million dollars of other spending (for additional class room teachers, for example) can’t happen.

Not just for one twelve month period, but again and again as the extra million dollars becomes a baseline for extra teacher salary expense year after year.

Word is that Huntley District 158 wants to hire a Certified Public Accountant for its next a chief financial officer.

Protecting the interests of taxpayers is not automatic just because one has passed that exam. Think Arthur Anderson and Enron for an extreme example of that.

The auditor who got the District 158’s audit numbers wrong in 2007 was a C.P.A..

The previous auditor was a C.P.A. and he got the numbers wrong in previous years as well.

Quagliano’s, Gentry’s and Skaja’s cave in, in this instance, will cause an automatic financial cave in for next year’s budget and the one after that.

Making this concession didn’t even prevent a strike.

The CPI is not in formula and wasn’t in the last weekend’s proposals to the HEA and they called the strike anyway.

That tells you how little good the C.P.A.s’ concession actually did at the time.

It wasn’t used to “make a deal;” it was a giveaway.

Both Snow and Seedorf were outvoted in caucus.

The “Last Best and Final” offer made sense as a financial structure.

Maybe if Green had bothered to show up he could have made it a 3-3 vote and the original proposal would be in the contract.

= = = = =
Huntley School District 158 Board members Larry Snow and Aileen Seedorf are seen top right. To the left and slightly below is School Board President Shawn Green. Below right is Kim Skaja. Below left are Kevin Gentry and Tony Quagliano. The picketers were found outside the western entrance to the Red Barn Road campus on the first day of the Huntley Education Association’s strike.