McHenry County Blog

No apology seems forthcoming for the pulling of financial fire alarms throughout Huntley schools and spreading the word that financial conditions were “bleak.”

Officials could say,

“Sorry, the financial numbers were messed up. We should have checked them. We shouldn’t have been telling reporters and the public the situation is ‘bleak.’”

The large change in the budget numbers was attributed to a “revenue error,” as if the error was beyond administrators’ control.

But, it was completely within their control.

An anonymous “revenue error” was in the Northwest Herald article.

Rather than admit publishing messed up financial numbers that showed deficits for each year for five years, Comptroller Mark Altmayer is unapologetic.  In the article Altmayer is quoted,

“My adjective of ‘bleak’ remains the same,” Altmayer said…”

Staying with “bleak,” reminds me of former presidential candidate’s John Edwards insisting his mistress’s baby wasn’t his for two years. Don’t let the facts get in your way as long as you can.

Only Huntley has school administrators proclaiming “bleak” when a sizable surplus for running the schools is projected for next year’s budget.

The surplus assumes no increase in the State Aid’s foundation level.

It strikes me this is the kind of response that creates mistrust in government. If public officials were willing to admit their mistakes, wouldn’t their credibility increase?

The Santa Claus approach to checking whether kids are naughty or nice might be in order.

No one ever said that CPA’s like Altmayer have the same skill sets as publish relations folks, but anyone can see that completely different financial results should not be described the same way…unless there is something else out there that would make “bleak” still appropriate.

Huntley taxpayers won’t eat anything put in their dog dish, at least not all the time.

= = = = =

A related article from Friday:

So, Is the Huntley School District in Financial Trouble or Not?

After a long interview with Huntley District 158 Controller Mark Altmayer, the Northwest Herald published an article about how the finances of District 158 were bleak.

It was so bleak Certified Public Accountant Altmayer put on a lengthy presentation to teachers internally within the district showing how negative the finances are.  Altmayer told the public the teachers “got it.”

Northwest Herald editor Chris Krug chewed on District 158 officials in his Sunday column titled

“Krug: D-158 strumming wrong tune”

In essence, Krug wrote in his column about not understanding how everything could have gotten so bad so quickly.  Krug blamed the teachers’ contract.

Well, the financial condition was never as bad as Altmayer thought.

Anyone who listened to former board member Larry Snow would have already known the numbers the district put out were screwed up.  Snow had told me, as he told me he did administrators and residents, that Altmayer’s projections were way off.

Huntley School District 158 Comptroller Mark Altmayer

Altmayer admitted the the numbers were wrong at last night’s board meeting.

Altmayer attributed the $1.4 million mistake showing the district not having enough money to a “reference cell error.”

As if reference cells go around distorting financial projections all by themselves without human intervention.

It was not a pesky, reference cell varmint who made the error. Altmayer is the one who produced and presented the calculations to the media and public.

Maybe he misunderstood how property taxes are calculated. They are confusing.

In any event, here was another Huntley school official publicly crying wolf to the Northwest Herald, the paper printing the story and all it turned out to be was a large calculation error by the district’s finance guy.

When Snow blogged on the Northwest Herald website under Krug’s column on Sunday, he wrote:

“The budget for next year should be relatively easy to balance.”

Looks right to me.

And Snow isn’t a CPA.

At Thursday night’s board meeting, Superintendent John Burkey was talking about hiring new staff for next year.

“Bleak” had turned into “let’s hire more staff.”

Find money. Spend it. Pretty typical attitude for public officials.

You might have had a teacher or two who told you to check your work before turning it in.

There are probably a few teachers in Huntley School District 158 who are either recoiling in dismay or laughing at how former teachers, now administrators in their district, have a different standard for themselves when they become administrators.

In this case, several parents, including Mrs. Sara DiFucci, seem far better at reading comprehension and mathematics than administrators who prepare and (are supposed to) read the documents given to the board and public.

In Thursday night’s board meeting, DiFucci pointed out a large error in special education material Supt. John Burkey submitted to the school board. It was in a document in which administrators added up their spending list for the Federal Stimulus ARRA IDEA funds.

There was a $295,576 addition error.

You can see the error on page 464 of 507 of the November board meeting packet.

If you scan and do a quick addition of the numbers on the first page of the report, say the first ten line items, you can see how they add up to much more than $800,000 (click to enlarge page 464).

Quick rounding is a way professionals and educators—even 5th graders in my son’s homework last year—look at numbers to see if there are any obvious errors.

Burkey’s board packet presented a spending total of $801,660.81 for 89 items in the initial request for Special Ed money from the Federal Stimulus Package.

The problem is that the first ten items on the two page list total more than $840,000.

A casual look of ten items lets you see there is an error.

Of course, Burkey probably doesn’t look at documents like this closely before they go to the board. That’s what staff are for.

Other administrators apparently didn’t bother either.

Later on in the meeting, board member Aileen Seedorf asked Controller Mark Altmayer if he knew of the large error.

Altmayer’s reply was interesting.

Without saying who was responsible, the Controller emphatically said it wasn’t his document, emphasizing he didn’t know about the error.

Sources within Huntley 158 have let it be known that multiple administrators knew of the error before Thursday night.

Is it possible, as top financial guy, Altmayer was left out of the loop and this wasn’t discussed at Burkey’s weekly cabinet meetings of which he’s part?

One might think that an expenditure as contentious as this would make that agenda.

To be fair to the new Special Ed (Special Services) Director Cheryl Kalkirtz, I have it on reasonably good authority the error was not of her making.

Interesting is no administrator was willing to raise his or her hand and say it was not Burkey’s mistake.

Burkey in the past has seemed proud of how he has a C.P.A. as Controller.

No comments about the C.P.A. test Altmayer passed Thursday night.

A fair question to ask is “What’s the point of having a C.P.A. as Controller if the district’s isn’t taking care that public documents with financial numbers in them are carefully reviewed?”

In any event, someone dropped the ball. In fact, the total for the proposed Special Education expenditures from the Federal Stimulus Package aren’t even in the ballpark.

In years past, Huntley’s board had Larry Snow and Tony Quagliano on it.

Both loved to review financial documents.

Snow, of course, lost to Mike Skala and Quagliano decided to retire.

There’s still a CPA on the board, Keven Gentry, but he apparently didn’t catch this mistake while reading the board packet. There are also a couple of M.B.A.’s on the board now. But, considering the District 158 administration dumped 507 pages into the board packet, there’s no reason they should have discovered the mistake.

The only board member who gave an indication of caring about the large error was Aileen Seedorf, who has been the one bird dogging on Special Education matters.

The six-member board majority expressed no concern at the mistake.

I will note, however, when state officials wanted a legislator not to find something, they smothered them in so much paper the odds of finding something that might be amiss were minuscule.

Burying people in paper is a tried and proven way to keep people from finding something.

Supt. Burkey didn’t so much as offer a superficial apology for the mistake. He didn’t say a word.

A $295,576 error would seem to me to be worth a mention.

Teachers help our children learn how errors should be admitted to when made.

It’s not as if anyone was expecting a Tiger Woods-like “I regret those transgressions with all of my heart” type of apology or offer of repentance.

An insincere “We regret the inconvenience this error may have caused anyone” that you might associate with a utility, bank or cable provider would have been in the something – anything category.

The example to teachers in the audience was when you make a large error admit to nothing and don’t say a word.

Special Ed director Kalkirtz apparently reports to Associate Supt. Terry Awrey.

Awrey, like all other administrators, sat silent, not volunteering a word lest it be thought he was at fault.

Showing teachers that neither he nor any of his top administrators are willing to admit to an error can hardly be considered leading by example.

It certainly won’t win a “We Set Good Examples” shiny apple award.

My guess is that all sorts of people set better examples of accountability than those unwilling to admit or apologize for this $300,000 mistake in public.

Say,

• kindergarten teachers
• first grade teachers
• second grade teachers
• third grade teachers
• fourth grade teachers
• fifth grade teachers
• sixth grade teachers
• any special ed teachers
• any certified special ed support people

or, well, you get the idea.

Some administrator(s) apparently has (have) not learned to check work before turning it in. Or to take responsibility for mistakes.

Or proof read the reading assignment given to the board and public.

Educators (and President Barack Obama) talk of teachable moments.

The Special Education revelation could have been one of those.

Burkey could have apologized for his staff’s mistake.

He didn’t.

He could have asked his staff in public to be more careful in the future, to double check their work before turning it in.

It gives me something other administrators can use as “how-not-to” example.

Perhaps the school board and the public will allow the “whatever” approach to an almost $300,000 error.

Even my son has learned there are consequences to that approach.

My guess is that teachers have set higher standards for students in Huntley’s classrooms.

Huntley district 158 posted a five-year financial plan on its web site as part of its board packet.

It was up in advance of the meeting last night of the board’s Financial Advisory Committee.

When advisory committee member and former school administrator Lucinda Nelson wanted to ask questions about it (it was put on the agenda) there was one problem:

No school administrators were there to answer any questions.

When the question was asked by former school administrator Lucinda Nelson about the ARRA Federal Stimulus Funds, there was one problem:

No school administrators were there to answer any questions.

When Nelson asked if the administration was going to stay within budget this year, there was one problem:

No school administrators were there to answer any questions.

Can Huntley school administrators and Superintendent John Burkey make it more obvious they don’t want to make themselves available to answer questions even from board committees and board committee members?

Perhaps the most bizarre excuse for the administrators’ absence, including Controller Mark Altmayer’s, was given by committee member Michael Andre.

Andre explained to committee members how administrators work during the day.

Lucinda Nelson replied,

“Do you think other people on this committee don’t work during the day?”

Grafton Supervisor Linda Moore is a District 158 Financial Advisory Committee member. Grafton trustees haven’t bothered to show up for four meetings so far. Perhaps Superintendent Burkey is allowing school administrators to do the same.

Or, perhaps the Financial Advisory Committee means nothing to the administration and the school board.

It may be normal in most school districts for first-year administrators, such as Altmayer, to show up to meetings for which they are the school administrator.

However, this was not the first time Altmayer was a no show for a Financial Advisory Committee.

How often does the committee meet?

Once a quarter.

For “community outreach” to have meaning, it would seem someone from the administration or school board would have to be present to meet with community members.

Having members of the community show up and talk among themselves reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live skit, “Coffee Talk with Linda Richman,” featuring Mike Meyers.

In the District 158 context, who would say,

Mike Meyers, Madonna and Roseanne Barr in a Saturday Night Live skit.

“I’m all verklempt.”

Would that be before or after someone said,

“Talk amongst yourselves.”

Maybe Huntley administrators will show up for meetings when they want more money to spend.

Yesterday, the first half of a report was published on what happened on the special ed front at the parents advisory committee meeting and the subsequent school board meeting. What follows, concludes that report.

Board member Aileen Seedorf questioned a disbursement to Scholastic Inc. for over fifty thousand dollars in the financial records. Scholastic provides Read 180.

Controller Mark Altmayer didn’t give it up and said he didn’t know.

With some persistence, other administrators fessed up and the cat was out of the bag.

Finally, Supt. Burkey confessed, saying 60 licenses had been purchased.

Curriculum director Mary Olsen said all of these licenses were to be used only for regular education students.

Tough to figure out how no licenses had been purchased a week earlier but we’ll wait for the response to the Freedom of Information request. And, if it’s unsatisfactory, I’ll file it again after January 1st when there will be actual penalties for those responding falsely.

One could still wonder why the Read 180 purchases were in a special ed classroom unpacked by a special ed student and given to a special ed student to take home to his parents.

Apparently at least one special ed student had been using the Read 180 program when none had been purchased for their use.

What the special ed parents asked for at the board meeting was

• Being able to make a presentation to the board on caseload staffing
• Parent participation on the committee coming up with revised ARRA funds spending recommendations

Seedorf tried to get the board and Burkey to agree to schedule a presentation by the parents at the next committee of the whole meeting.

Burkey and the board majority turned cold shoulders to both suggestions.

How unreasonable are such requests, considering how the Special Ed Moms have been treated this fall?

They are very reasonable.

In order to get the superintendent and 158 administrators to listen one apparently has to go door-to-door passing out flyers.

The Daily Herald pointed out how Burkey had “stone ears” in its article and how the parents distributed flyers door-to-door in order to stop this vote and get a revised spending list.

The Northwest Herald observed of the newest revision of how District 158 intends to spend the $1.6 million (which happened after the flyers hit door knobs):

“And the initiative for additional staff development –such as the opportunity to be trained in disability awareness –increased to $450,000 total.”

Parents told the board there had been other items purchased besides Read 180 and there was an internal memo indicating such.

As you might expect, administrators asked for a copy of their own memo, rather than offer to provide the memo to the board with an explanation.

Perhaps the memo has to surface publicly before its existence is confirmed by the administration.

Sort of like how the Read 180 licenses and materials weren’t purchased this year until a special ed parent brought the materials to a board meeting for show and tell.

District 158 is among the model local governments in revealing what will be discussed at their meetings. (In comparison, Crystal Lake reveals nothing more than its agenda and, then, not on a convenient basis.)

But with how it obtained the Read 180 licenses, which it apparently wants to finance with Federal stimulus money and which educational value is clearly experimental for special ed kids, “transparency” apparently means,

“Show us evidence of what you suspect and we’ll admit that’s what it is.”

Thank goodness for observant parents.

And others.

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.

I went to the Special Ed town hall meeting with school board members July 14th in Huntley District 158.

There I received this handout which you can see online or just click to enlarge the image above.

It’s on page 3 of the Special Education Revenue and Expenditures – Historical Overview

What struck me was the $14.3 million of special ed expenditures and the $4.7 million of special ed revenue. The document’s purpose was apparently to show how much more the district is spending on special ed than it’s receiving.

But is this true? Of is just the opposite true?

How much would be spent if all of the special ed kids were regular ed kids?

If you said all of the Special Ed kids were regular ed kids then you can take a percentage of total ed fund expenditures to come up with a dollar amount. This would be a proportionate expense.

It looks like $8.64 million.

In Huntley this number is easy to calculate. The proposed Ed fund budget is slightly over $60 million. The total enrollment figure of 9,032 was handed out on August 20th. From this and about 1,300 students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP’s) you can calculate the $8.64 million.

At first superficial glance $14.3 million is more than the proportionate amount of $8.64 million plus the $4.7 million of extra special ed revenue. By slightly less than a million dollars ($960,000).

That is until ………………..

The First Ooopsy:

Upon this being pointed out by a resident, Controller Mark Altmayer, admitted he “forgot” to include $800,000 in the revenue number.

Altmayer put about 800 grand into the expenditures number for the IDEA ARRA money, but forgot to put the same revenue paying for this into the revenue number.

Altmayer is a Certified Public Accountant. I’m not an accountant, but double entry bookkeeping comes to mind.

Even knowing this mistake, the handout for the next evening wasn’t corrected or footnoted.

After the first Ooopsy, it looks like a wash.

The $8.64 million that would be spent on the 1,300 Special Ed students, plus the $4.7 million in state money for Special Ed comes close to the amount Altmayer says is being spent on Special Ed.

That is until I looked at Huntley’s detailed line item budget.

The Big Ooopsy:

For the life of me I couldn’t add up to $14.3 million dollars in the budget for Special Ed items.

How can one get that high using only what is spent on real Special Ed expenditures?

The only way you can come up with such a high number is to include large expenditures that are for regular ed students and label all of them “Special Ed. “

What could be those expenditures be?

Not all of social worker services and salaries and benefits for example are consumed by special ed students.

Every school administrator knows this.

Just a fraction of social worker services go to Special Ed students.

Is their inclusion one way the Special Ed number got so high?

Same goes for psychologists and for preschool expenses. Kids having trouble adjusting don’t have to be Special Ed students. And, not all preschool expenditures are for Special Ed students. Plenty of testing and screening goes on for all students.

There has to be upwards of a million dollars of expenditures budgeted in the $14.3 million that isn’t really going to Special Ed students.

I have FOIA’d the line item detail. We will see what I get in the breakdown provided.

When you take out the exaggerated budgeting that isn’t really Special Ed, it looks as if Special Ed students are subsidizing expenditures for regular education students.

That is, when you add the $8.6 million that would be spent on the 1,300 students, if they didn’t have IEP’s, to the $4.7 million that is specifically earmarked for Special Ed, the total being spent on Special Ed seems less than $13.3 million.

And, if this is the case and if it has been for a number of years, how can the administration and school board argue that half of the Federal stimulus money the district is getting for Special Ed should be diverted to non-Special Ed uses–even if that is legal?

There may be a lot behind why a well-respected Special Ed Director and two Assistant Directors left Huntley all at the same time.

Neither of the two daily newspapers did exit interviews when they jumped ship earlier this year.

If services weren’t being provided, as mandated by law because other administrators wanted Special Ed to subsidize regular education, that might explain why they left. Maybe they really cared for the Special Ed kids and didn’t want to work in a district where they were being short-changed.

Special Ed expenditures were brought up at the Financial Advisory Committee by Mrs. Lucinda Nelson on August 25th. Nelson is a former school administrator with expertise in Special Ed.

Unfortunately the advisory committee decided not to review the Special Ed budget in any detail this year in spite of the discrepancies and concerns that Mrs. Nelson expressed.

The majority of the committee had no interest in looking at the detail.

A comment was made by one committee member that even if they did ask questions it wouldn’t make a difference.

“Wouldn’t have an impact” is what one committee member said.

Were these members saying the administration and board members wouldn’t listen, so why bother?

What chance do the Special Ed parents have when a district’s own Financial Advisory Committee complains publicly that “they” (administrators and board members) wouldn’t listen, even if the committee said something?

What if it turns out the $14.3 million Special Ed expenditures number was indeed exaggerated, as it looks like it was.

There is no legal requirement I’m aware for school officials to report such numbers truthfully.

Official oversight provided by having a C.P.A. and two M.B.A.’s on Huntley’s school board of education can’t protect against inaccurate numbers being reported to them.

Data processing folks used to talk about GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.

When government employees are not fairly dealing with Special Education parents at the local level in person at local meetings what do you think will happen within a vast government-run bureaucracy for health care? How will those less fortunate, but needing more than average cost care be treated by the bureaucracy?

Waiting for the state legislature to levy monetary or criminal penalties for school officials who don’t report numbers accurately is about like expecting there will be no fraud in the Federal health care program now being debated.

Not likely.

= = = = =
The close-up is of Huntley School District 158′s new Comptroller, Mark Altmayer. The second photo shows School Board President Shawn Green addressing the Special Education parents at the first meeting in mid-July. Two others show various parts of the audience. Between are most of the board members and administrators at the July 14, 2008, meeting.

You might think a school district’s budget has to show specifically where the money is going to come from to pay for its legal debt obligations that are due in this budget year

You might think in normal budgeting, state law and State Board of Education might require this.

A quote in a July 15th Daily Herald summed up what’s going on in Huntley District 158.

“We’ve got a $1.9 million payment due this year, and the impact and transition fees aren’t going to be enough to cover that,” District 158 Comptroller Mark Altmayer said.

Top finance guy and CPA Altmayer and Supt. John Burkey came up with this innovation:

This is the kind of financial finesse the General Assembly has done for years with required pension payments.

In case you haven’t noticed, that’s the main reason Democrats are pushing for a 50% and 67% income tax hike.

Maybe that’s where Huntley District 158 School District administrators got the idea.

It’s bad enough Burkey has a–to be polite–$449,405 discretionary fund budget line item. Page 37 of 62 of the expenditure budget has this line item (click to enlarge).

DO NOT USE–UNDEF BUDGET SAL $449,405 Placeholder for Admin and Non Union and Tier 2 Salaries

Page 37 of 62 can be found at http://www.district158.org/boe/BOE%20COTW%20Packet%2009-10/BOE%20SPEC%2008-13-09.pdf

With school starting you’d think administrators have hired who they need?

When local government officials don’t have to budget legal debt repayments that are still on the books and can budget a sizable mystery fund for salaries after school has already started, no wonder there are trust issues with ordinary citizens.

Illinois has a State Board of Education bureaucracy, but when these kinds of practices are what goes on for budgeting, are residents being protected from abuses by government employees and officials?

Maybe we should take to heart what Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said at a recent town hall meeting;

“Whoever told you to trust the government?

“You live in a democracy. I never asked anyone to trust the government. It’s not your mother, your father or your doctor.”

Apparently we can’t trust people in local government positions to budget the repayment of legal debt obligations. When a leading liberal in the U.S. Congress admonishes us about trusting government, you could say the truth is out of the closet.

And liberals wonder why a majority of Americans don’t want government to take over health care.

The District 158 Financial Advisory Committee meets Tuesday (tonight) at 7:30.

Maybe a majority of them will have enough financial and accounting common sense to insist the legal debt repayment be put in the budget until such time as the board has officially taken action to not have to make the payment.

In other words, “normal” budgeting.

The proposed budget by administrators which will go on public display August 17th has a hidden tax increase. Neither Superintendent John Burkey nor the board majority is publicly highlighting it.

You can see it hidden on page 39 of 62 on this link. If it doesn’t work anymore, as I have been told, try this one.

$1.6 million of debt is wiped out of this year’s budget and, thus, expenditures by shifting the debt repayment out of the budget and putting it into the bond tax rate. It’s called debt rescheduling.

Burkey’s plan is to have many millions of dollars of bonds and their interest payments shifted from within a tax capped limited fund to the bond tax rate, which has no tax cap limitation.

When you increase the tax burden on residents, however, you are increasing taxes on residents.

Huntley avoided going to referendum or a public vote to expand Marlowe Middle school.

It did it by pledging to pay for the school expansion out of normal annual tax cap limited funds.

With impact fees down, Burkey and Comptroller Mark Altmayer’s idea is to transfer paying for the expansion onto taxpayers in the form of a taxes hike.

Fiscal responsibility, Huntley School District style.

The more money and interest that has to be paid from the bond tax rate levy on taxpayers’ property tax bills, the more taxes will be paid. Altmayer is a resident of Geneva and not affected by higher District 158 taxes.

The District 158 budget is being balanced on two things;

• The first is on the backs of special ed parents losing federal IDEA funds.
• The second is because of this hidden tax increase.

I attended the July 14th town hall meeting.

The phrase “fiscally responsible” was used again and again by both Burkey and Altmayer.

I thought Board President Shawn Green position was there wouldn’t be tax increases. He described himself as a “conservative” at the July 14th meeting and at the tea party rally in Crystal Lake.

There were apparent multiple contradictions voiced last Thursday night at District 158’s board meeting.

First, Supt. John Burkey was again insisting next year’s financial picture is “bleak.”

Second, six of seven board members were saying they “intended” to spend an additional $800,000 on additional special ed items next year. The Feds provided $1.6 million, but the board wants to divert half of that to non-special ed needs.

That’s legal, but morality is another question.

The board, though, is saying it will spend another $800,000–above and beyond the special ed base–on special ed next year.

So, which is it?

Is the district in trouble financially or does it have chunks of money coming in next year that can be spent anyway the board wants to.

It’s hard to see why the board couldn’t spent the entire $1.6 million this year, considering this year’s budget shows a $2.3 million surplus.

When Linda Betzold, a special ed parent, explained the board’s “intentions” to the Special Ed Committee last Thursday night there was spontaneous laughter from the special ed mothers.

It’s hard to fool a mother when they are in “Mom” mode. Apparently the three top administrators who are male, Burkey, Controller Mark Altmayer and Terry Awrey apparently thought the moms wouldn’t notice.

They did.

It may be a typical male, sexist attitude that will blame the moms if they file a class action lawsuit seeking appropriate educations for their children.

The guys apparently weren’t listening when mothers explained they were spending in some instances $50,000 and $80,000 in one year for special ed services the district won’t provide.

That is serious money.

There is no serious effort being made to start the school year off with providing additional services for special ed kids with the first $800,000 of new money from the Fed’s stimulus package.

The start of school year is right around the corner.

Everyone including Supt. Burkey agrees the list of what to spend the first $800,000 on is largely defective.

This was pointed out by the special ed moms more than a month ago. I heard their objections.

They had keener insights than the administrators.

In a July 31st column, Daily Herald reporter Jameel Naqvi summed up the proposal’s defectiveness.

“But Burkey did say the list of items on which the remaining $800,000 will be spent is being retooled to include more staff and parent input.

“‘I don’t think we have a lot of staff involved, and that bothers me,’ Burkey said.”

On Thursday night, new Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz didn’t bother to ask the parents for their input on retooling these items.

When parent Linda Berthold asked this to be included on next month’s agenda, Kalkirtz essentially said that it wasn’t the purpose of the committee.

I wonder what part of “Advisory” Kalkirtz doesn’t understand in the title “Special Ed Parents Advisory Committee?”

The board majority seems content with how the guys (Burkey, Altmayer and Awrey) haven’t come up with a spending list or implementation plan for the start of school.

How likely is it the “guys” don’t have a special needs child?

My guess is with their lack of urgency, 100%. Awrey is second in command and a Crystal Lake (not a District 158) resident. Altmayer lives in Geneva.

The last defective list was put together in a memo on May 14th. You can find it using this link and going to “5.1 ARRA Funds.”

Let’s see that’s May 14th, June 14th, July 14th, August 14th.

Three months and not one thing specifically proposed by the “guys” is ready to be improved and implemented for the start of school.

If they keep dragging their feet they can blow off implementing anything for the entire first semester. (Just as with they almost did with the student drug testing program.)

Wait a minute, maybe delay is their non-educational educational plan for the special needs children?

One would hope members of the the board majority would ask administrators for the

question about their new plan. Even a “natural” deadline like “school is starting” is allowed to slide.

One thing’s for sure:

the “guys” didn’t want Kalkirtz suggesting a revised list for discussion purposes at Thursday’s special ed advisory meeting.

And she complied.

Now the “guys” and Kalkirtz can delay still another month before revealing how they will help the special ed kids.

Kalkirtz doesn’t live in District 158 either.

Not adding services for the start of school doesn’t directly affect her family either.

In this respect she is just like “one of the guys.”

Welcome to the club.