Four people have filed to run for school board in Huntley School District 156.
Three are incumbents:
Running for the seat that Mike Skala vacated when he took office on the McHenry County Board is Michael J. Fleck. I met Fleck when he was serving on the Huntley Area Library Board. He is not currently on that board.
These comments by Huntley School District Superintendent John Burkey in the First Electric Newspaper stirred my memory:
Supt. John Burkey tells union leaders that ratification will be delayed.
“Last year I was amazed that we avoided it,” said Supt. John Burkey.
“This year it just caught up with us.”
He slammed a three-year union contract now ending that he said included a more than 5 percent raise this year “while everyone else only got 1.7 percent.”
So I asked a participant with a long memory, a member of the board negotiating team in fact, Larry Snow, what he remember about how contract negotiations went before and during the Huntley Education Association’s strike.
Here is his reply:
Larry Snow
“The 158 board voted on a last, best and final offer that had teachers’ salaries for years 2 and 3 determined by a cost of living increase formula.
“With Supt. John Burkey’s nod of approval, board members Tony Quagliano, Kevin Gentry and Kim Skaja voted to reverse the board’s vote, as Board President Shawn Green literally was a no-show at the final negotiation meetings.
“This made it a 3 – 2 vote in caucus to toss aside a decision to have teachers’ salaries in years 2 and 3 track a cost of living index.
“The union didn’t care that overspending might cause future deficits and cause teachers to be laid off in the future.
“Huntley teachers should only look to their own union officials for striking, now causing deficits and teacher layoffs.
“Teacher greed means teachers who aren’t tenured are the ones that are laid off and they are not a union vote majority.”
Want some history?
Here it is:
Kim Skaja, a Huntley District 158 School Board member apparently thinks the Tea Party attracts people who want to throw Molotov cocktails.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
So here’s her post from the Huntley Neighbors’ blog.
She was responding to former board President Shawn Green.
| Kim | 08-16-2010 06:01 AM |
Kim Skaja
Shawn, be fair. He didn’t refuse to speak to you face to face; he is reluctant to attend the meeting with a room filled with angry people. There are a lot of crazy people in the world. A local person told a friend of mine we should all throw molotov cocktails at federal buildings and “take back our government.” Those are not your views and I do not believe your party advocates those views; however it does attract people with those views.
Pam Fender, Huntley village trustee, whose day job as Grafton Township Administrator has been put in jeopardy by the separation of powers court case awaiting decision, added this to the thread:
| pam | 08-16-2010 06:13 AM |
Remember Shawn has a great advantage- he carries a gun.
Fender neglects to mention that Green is able to carry a gun since he is employed by the Schaumburg police.
Both Skaja and Fender are anti-Tea Party, favoring big government and all of the liberal spending that goes with it. They both are certifiable tax increase advocates.
There is desperation in the political air when Skaja and Fender as elected officials in Huntley are writing about throwing “Molotov cocktails” and carrying a gun to scare off people from attending a Huntley Tea Party meeting.
Skaja and Fender fear conservatives organizing politically as the unions in Illinois already are.
What has Skaja’s and Fender’s bloomers in a knot?
It started with this message post:
Huntley Tea Party – Town Hall Meeting
Huntley Town Hall Meeting
Monday August 23, 2010 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Cosman Cultural Center, Huntley, Illinois (map) Be part of the next big Tea Party Event. Your opportunity to meet state and local legislators and candidates. Ask questions. Find out their views on important issues. Be a better informed voter. Be part of this important exchange of ideas.
Maybe Skaja can tell us when the last Molotov cocktail was thrown at a political event in Illinois “to meet state and local legislators and candidates.”
I would say there’s about zero chance elected official Skaja filed a report with the F.B.I. or Huntley police about someone trying to incite someone else to throw Molotov cocktails at Federal buildings. Such a threat would be a serious crime, maybe even a felony. It might even be a crime not report such a felony.
Of course Skaja, as a school board member, would report a felony if she learned of one, right?
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.
The Huntley School District 158 Board room was packed Thursday at 7 PM.
The only two empty seats were that of Board President Shawn Green and board member Kim Skaja. Skaja showed up after missing the academic spotlight and almost all of the parents’ public comments. Green was absent, having told me that he would participate by phone if the special education agenda item were to be considered.
The parents’ advisory committee meeting on special ed had started at 6. It received record attendance. (Seen above are some of those who attended the July 14th meeting of the same committee.)
Many special ed teachers were in attendance.
At issue were staffing recommendations that has caseloads close to the legal maximum limit, for example, for speech pathologists in five schools.
The plan proposed by the administration for formal adoption has the burden being placed on individual teachers to prove they have too large of a caseload before adequate staffing is considered to meet the needs of the children.
“Prove it! with you doing all of the work” is apparently Human Resources Chief Lauren Smith’s new idea of working together and “collaborating” with the teachers.
The first item discussed by Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz was her suggestion to not have a December 10th parents advisory committee meeting.
She asked for a show of hands of those favoring not having the meeting.
The only hands raised were the administrators’.
When then asked how many wanted to have the meeting, a roomful of hands went up.
The attempt to gain approval to cancel the meeting at which the Federal stimulus ARRA IDEA spending would be discussed with parents failed. Apparently, their kids education was considered more important than Christmas parties.
One parent in 158, who is a special ed teacher in another district, made this point about the reading programs proposed to be financed with Federal funds:
“What are we doing to make sure it’s being implemented properly?”
When Kalkirtz seemed to try to brush off the point, wanting to move onto a different topic, a Special Ed Mom from the back of the room spoke up:
“I don’t think you heard what she was saying!”
It was fairly obvious from comments made by some of the teachers that this may have been the only time all of these teachers were in a room and asked or allowed to voice their opinions and ask questions about how the $1.6 million dollars should be spent.
It certainly did not appear that administrators had asked the teachers for their input on the revised list of expenditures.
Strange that teachers may have to attend public meetings if they want to “collaborate” with administrators on a group basis. Wouldn’t you think that would be included in the union contract?
Parents learned that, contrary to what Supt. John Burkey said at the previous board meeting, 60 Read 180 licenses had already been purchased for Heineman school. (When Burkey challenged a Special Ed Mom to file a Freedom of Information request on the topic the Thursday before last, I did. I’ll let you know when I get the response.)
The Moms knew this because, apparently as part of class time, a special ed student was assigned to unpack the boxes which were stacked up in a special ed room.
In addition, a special ed student received the Read 180 materials to take home so the parents could see what was going to be used for that student.
More tomorrow.
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:
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.
The margin was overwhelming on election day.
65% to 35%.
Before adding in absentee and early votes, Skala led the two-county school district by about 3,700 to 1,300.
Almost 2-1.
A landslide.
Mike Skala, who lost a campaign two years ago while Huntley School District 158 Board President to Aileen Seedorf, Kevin Gentry and Jim Carlin, trounced elected incumbent Larry Snow.
Skala can again refer to himself as an “elected school board member,” rather than an “appointed school board member.”
Skala’s was a well-run campaign.
Snow’s was handicapped by an automobile accident that left him incapable of mounting a door-to-door campaign.
Skala’s campaign consisted of at least three mailings, including a post card of endorsement from State Representative and McHenry County Republican Party Chairman Mike Tryon, one of the recipients of a generous Skala company contribution, and Pam Althoff, similarly, a recipient of a generous contribution.
He had two at least other mailings, neither of which I got a copy of.
There was a phone call the last weekend and plenty of signs, none of which could I find a mere one hour after the polls closed. Skala’s efficient organization had taken them all down. Virtually all seem to have been illegally put on the public right of way.
I especially like the homemade-looking ones (maybe they were homemade) saying, “Vote Today.”
That’s an innovation worth copying.
My guess is that Skala’s was a classic voter identification and get out the vote campaign built upon the base of approximately 1,000 teachers and family members who live within the District 158 boundaries.
More than teachers and their families voted for Skala, of course.
He got almost 2,000 votes in McHenry County and 317 in the Kane County part of Sun City. Still incomplete, but let’s say 2,300-plus.
Two years ago, in his close loss, Skala received 1,570 votes in McHenry County and 301 in Kane County. That’s almost 1,900.
Four years ago, Snow got 1,877 in McHenry County and 1,191 in Kane County for 2,978, more than Skala received this time around.
Snow got 833 in McHenry this year and 462 in Kane, totally about 1,300. A 1,600 vote drop off.
So Skala’s vote increased 400 from two years ago and Snow’s decreased 1,600 from four years ago.
Of course, people aren’t as angry today about the deceptive tax hike Skala spoke for way back then. Political memories are short.
Politicians who hike taxes count on that.
And, lots of the Sun City folks probably have not yet returned from their snowbird homes, since Easter is next weekend.
It is interesting to note that most of Snow’s supporters did not vote for the four unopposed candidates for the four-year seats. Those spots will be filled by incumbents Shawn Green and Kim Skaja, plus newcomers Paul Troy and Donald Drzal.
Typically, lots of people are turned off by the type of smear campaign mounted by Skala’s allies.
Voters decide just not to participate.
That is exactly the reaction that those mounting the smear campaign usually hope for.
I wonder if this was a deliberately thought out strategy by the Skala campaign manager.
In any event, Skala’s campaign was obviously professionally managed and adequately financed.
I can hear the cheers of the teachers for the husband of their former co-president.
No more pesky questions on behalf of the taxpayers from Larry Snow.
No more forensic audits being pushed to look at illegally approved payments to administrators, which were never recovered by the board majority.
No more questions from Snow about why sexual harassment settlements are not discussed at public board meetings.
No more from Snow questions about why cronies are being pushed for high paid district positions for which they are unqualified.
And, most importantly, no more Larry Snow as chief salary negotiator.
The question remains whether this “lesson” will keep future taxpayer-oriented citizens from daring to invade the teacher-controlled school board majority citadel.
Back to the old way of doing things.
I wonder when the next tax hike referendum will be held.
On Saturday morning Sun City hosted a candidates’ forum for Huntley school board candidates.
There is only one contested race. Larry Snow, who is running for re-election, versus Mike Skala, who as board president was voted out of office in the last election. Aileen Seedorf was the top vote getter and Skala didn’t make the top “vote for 3” list.
The event turned out to be a tag team match with the three incumbent board majority board members – Skala, Kim Skaja and Shawn Green – one team and Snow on the other.
Rather than have a one-on-one debate between Snow and Skala, the organizers of the forum gave Skala a huge advantage. They included all of the uncontested candidates for the four-year terms.
In her opening remarks, Kim Skaja said Snow spun everything.
She attacked Snow for having helped Seedorf win election to the Board in the last election.
Seedorf did best in Sun City, so it seemed a strange venue for such an attack.
Next up was Snow opponent Skala. He advised the audience not to listen to what Snow said at the forum because he is always “spinning” everything.
Strangely enough, that, in itself, sounds like “a spin.”
Green, who genuinely dislikes Snow, savaged him in an attack which had nothing to do with his District 158 performance.
Snow was seated by the forum committee so he would give the last opening remarks.
His first sentence was,
“My proposals as a board member are saving our district millions of dollars.”
After making a few more comments, Snow said,
“I describe my accomplishments in detail at my web site VoteForLarrySnow.com.”
Referring to his opponent Skala, Snow got off one of the best lines of the day:
Moderator Shelly Appleton seemed less than fair minded in how he conducted the forum.
After both Skala and Skaja were allowed to speak for a combined 10 minutes (answers were supposed to be kept to one minute) for a question they were asked to answer, Snow asked if he could comment.
The reply was “No.”
But when a question was only asked for Snow to answer, Green asked to speak and offer his comment as a police officer.
Yes, that’s right, not as candidate Green but as “Officer” Green.
The audience started saying and yelling, “No, No!” It was obvious it was going to be a personal attack.
The moderator let Green speak. He launched a personal attack on Snow.
As Green went on audience members continued to say, “No, No, No.”
Continuing, Green ignored the audience.
What Officer Green tried to pin on Snow was “spousal abuse.” Green knows Snow hasn’t been married for well over 13 years, yet tried to tag him with the political smear.
Snow response at the forum was simple:
“You can see what I have to deal with and what the challenges are of being on this board.”
Virtually all of Skala’s campaign against Snow consists of personal smears.
It’s as if Skala tried campaigning on the issues two years ago, lost his seat and doesn’t want to risk a similar outcome this time around.
One might sense there is something a bit unsettling when a police officer specifically references his status as a police officer in a political campaign to imply a candidate, who he is not even running against him, committed a crime 15 years ago.
Green didn’t say,
“Can I comment?”or
“Can I speak to that?”
He said something like,
“Would you like to hear how a police officer sees this?”
The original question was about Snow’s auto accident. Moderator Appleton let Green first attack Snow on this and then go on to other personal attacks.
Maybe Green and his buddies on the force will be sitting around having beers and laughing about how he implied a citizen committed a crime.
If you don’t think Green was “implying,” then you have to ask why Green started quoting statistics on the number of women who don’t report spousal abuse, not sexual harassment, about which the school district presumably has actually dealt, considering settlement checks were written last July.
Green made no objection as to how Snow performed his job as a school board member.
The third unopposed candidate, newcomer PaulTroy, spoke before Snow and gave a lengthy commentary about his visit to Ellis Island. He did not engage in personal attacks.
From the reaction of Huntley School Board member’s friends to my article about Kim Skaja’s being the king maker who induced Rob LaPorta (Grafton Township trustee candidate for re-election and candidate for the District 158 board) to step aside, I conclude I may have been wrong.
When viewing political tea leaves from afar, what looks logical–more often than not–is logical.
When I learned that Skaja had announced LaPorta’s decision to withdraw, I thought that meant she was putting things together for the board majority coalition.
Skaja is a direct beneficiary of his withdrawal because she is now guaranteed another four years on the school board. She is the senior board member.
Today, the Northwest Herald reported that LaPorta sent a letter to all school board candidates but Larry Snow telling them that he is withdrawing because he has a new job and the school board would take too much time.
It is common knowledge that the five candidates who were running for the four-year seats are allies with Mike Skala, who is facing off against Larry Snow.
LaPorta’s letter makes that pretty clear. He is a strong supporter of Mike Skala’s beating Snow for the two-year term.
You see, the board majority is not satisfied with a consistent 5-2 vote. The coalition supporting it wants total control.
Electing all four of the four-year seats will give the board majority continued solid control of the Huntley School District.
But, they think that pesky Larry Snow must go.
Snow, after all, is the one who pointed out that the 55-cent tax rate hike was not needed.
The victors in that tax hike referendum want him out of the picture.
And Snow keeps asking questions that the board majority doesn’t want to confront in public.
As evidence of the board majority coalition’s plan, I present the fact that two candidates—Mike Skala and Paul Troy–filed against Larry Snow for the two-year term. Snow and the other two filed for four-year terms, too.
Troy withdrew and is guaranteed a four-year seat.
Maybe no one in that faction is “pulling the strings.” Maybe there is a colloquial decision-making process.
Maybe it’s all coincidence.
If Skaja’s friends say it is not her coordinating the campaign, so be it.
But if no one deserves any credit for the strategy, then this little corner of Illinois politics is very, very different from every other one I have observed and/or participated in.
Latest Posts
