McHenry County Blog

Today must be “GOP Congressional Criticism of President Barack Obama’s stimulus program.” (Note Congressman Peter Roskam’s press release on the same subject here.)

Manzullo: Three Million More Americans Out of
Work on 1st Anniversary of Failed Stimulus Bill

WASHINGTON – Congressman Don Manzullo (R-Egan) today said the $862 billion stimulus bill he opposed a year ago has failed miserably in its primary objective – to create jobs for Americans. Instead, Congress and the President should focus on helping the private sector put Americans back to work.

When the stimulus bill was enacted one year ago today, the Administration claimed it would create 3.5 to 4 million jobs.

In reality, another 3 million Americans lost their jobs since then.

In addition, America’s unemployment rate rose from 7.6 to 9.7 percent since that time.

The big problem is that less than 5 percent of the bill was for job-creating infrastructure spending.

The vast majority was spent on expanding and creating new social programs that are not heavy private sector job creators.

And because of the record spending, the budget deficit has surged past $1.4 trillion and our national debt is beyond $12 trillion.

In fact, the fastest growing part of the President’s just-released budget is interest on the national debt, which is estimated to be more than $800 billion annually by 2020.

Instead of continuing the out-of-control government spending that doesn’t create jobs, Manzullo has offered a plan to help the private sector expand and put Americans back to work. If more Americans work in the private sector, they would pay the taxes necessary to sustain public sector jobs.

Manzullo’s American Jobs Agenda focuses on helping employers cut costs, become more competitive, and create jobs through tax incentives, lower health care and energy costs, leveling the international playing field, and helping employers export more overseas and sell more to the government.

“From the beginning, we knew the $862 billion stimulus would fail its primary purpose to put Americans back to work because so little of it was focused on private sector job-creation. In fact, we have lost 3 million more jobs since it was enacted a year ago,” Manzullo said.

“Government can’t create self-sustaining jobs. We need to focus on helping the private sector become more competitive so they can expand and put Americans back to work. One answer is my American Jobs Agenda, which gives our employers tax incentives, cuts health care and energy costs, levels the international playing field, and helps our employers export more and sell more to the government.”

Approved unanimously by the McHenry County Finance and Audit Committee this morning, the proposed $40 million McHenry County Sportsplex comes with $5 million worth of strings to Lakewood taxpayers, including $1 million to buy the land on Route 47 and 176.

A May 13th letter from newly-elected Village President Erin Smith to McHenry County Sportsplex entrepreneur Lou Tenore of Lake in the Hills promises a “cash transfer of $1,000,000.00 from the Village to MCS to the extent permitted by law or acquisition by the Village of up to $1,000,000.00 in land for the project.”

This is part of a $5 million assistance package “to support this project in a manner consistent with Illinois law.”

Outlined in the letter are other financial incentives:

“Waiver of Lakewood municipal annexation, platting, permitting, and associated hearing fees as well as reimbursement of Village professional costs up to a total value of $1,000,000.00.“An additional $3,000,000.00 (or greater to the extent that the amount provided if fee waivers [above] totals less than $1,000,000.00) provided through a combination of other sources included, but not limited to:

1. Revenue-sharing agreements or tax rebate agreements
2. Assistance from the Village securing a grant from the Upper Illinois River Development AuthorityOther technical assistance from the Village whether provided directly to the Developer or to the Village
3. Introductions and support by the Village to funders for other grants whether such grants are made directly to the Developer or to the Village
4. Any grants or financial assistance provided to MCS from McHenry County at the request of the Village
5. Property tax abatements, if any, for the parcel
6. USDA technical assistance whether provided directly to the Developer or to the Village
7. Tourism attraction or TAP grants whether provided directly to the Developer or to the Village.

So what, according to the letter, does Lakewood get in return?

To recover the $1 million “advance”

• The village may retain, for its own purposes, its share of the first $1 million in sales tax revenue or amusement tax revenue generated by the project.
• It can also “be satisfied by other cash payments from the Developer.” Listed are a “10% additional charge on all regular admission fees and a 20%s charge on all tournaments fees along with a $1 per vehicle parking fee.” This would be pledged for a ten-year period.
• If the village supplies land, rather than case, the land will be deeded to the developer when the village has recovered the purchase price through sales tax, amusement tax and other fees.

For the $15 million loan he sought authorized by the same Federal Stimulus source, Woodstock minor league baseball promoter Pete Heitman told the New York times that he expected to save $5 million over twenty years.

The letter from Village President Smith says the $5 million in assistance needs to be provided “within 18 months.”

= = = = =

The photo to the right is of Lakewood Village President Erin Smith at a fall “Meet with the Village President” gathering.

16th Congressional District U.S. Representative Don Manzullo (R-Egan) was asked to comment on President’s Barack Obama’s most recent proposal to rev up the economy.

“We’ve got to stop this crazy spending going on,” Manzullo told the Fox business channel.

Manzullo’s press release follows:

Concerns with Administration’s Plan to Continue Deficit Spending in Latest Stimulus Proposal

[WASHINGTON]  Congressman Don Manzullo (R-IL) appeared on the Fox Business channel this afternoon with his colleague Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) to discuss the President’s latest stimulus plan.

Manzullo supports tax relief to help small employers put Americans back to work, which is a part of the President’s plan, but he expressed serious concerns that the Administration will continue to dig America deeper into debt to pay for its proposal. The plan should be offset with spending cuts, he said. The federal deficit stands at an alarming $1.4 trillion, the national debt is beyond $12 trillion, and Americans are paying hundreds of billions of dollars annually in interest on the debt. Furthermore, Moody’s announced today it is considering downgrading the U.S. credit rating.

Here’s his appearance on Fox Business:

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.

Item	Precise No.	Quick Round, 000′s
1	$295,576	300
2	114,286	100
3	199,733	200
4	36,900	40
5	35,000	40
6	35,000	40
7	34,620	30
8	33,500	30
9	30,000	30
10	27,000	30
Above total	$841,615	840

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.

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.

Yesterday, McHenry County Blog began a rather exhaustive report on Thursday night’s meeting of the Huntley School District 158 school board meeting on how to spend Federal Stimulus money earmarked for special education.

Today we continue the comments made by Special Ed Moms.

The plan would “continue to keep the district out of compliance,” Sara Deifucci charged.

“The district is so sensitive when it comes to regular students. It seems insensitive to special (needs) students.”

There was also this intriguing question:

“Has the district already purchased anything that parents aren’t aware of? Have you already purchased Read 180 licenses?”

“No,”

Superintendent John Burkey replied.

“If I FOI it, (will I find something)?”

“Do your FOIA (short for Freedom of Information request),” he said.

Past shyness was shed as one after another they worked up courage to speak in public about what they saw as poor judgment concerning where the money was to be spent.

Those with probing questions trained their sights on a computer assisted reading program called Read 180.

It is a program that is aimed at junior high kids. Late in the discussion it was reported that pilot program for sixty students had been conducted, but none of the students were special ed children. They were low level readers and, from the recommendation to roll out the program more widely, it must have been successful.

“It’s failed iin other districts,” another Mom said. She said her son, who has an Individual Education Plan (IEP) had told her he was going to start Read 180.

“Keep my son out of those things until it’s in his IEP,” she said firmly.

This mother even seems to have made the jump into political arena.

“We made choices by putting you in this spot. I wish I had gotten involved earlier.”

= = = = =
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

We would like to think government employees wouldn’t take money away from special ed children and use it for regular education.

Especially when money is specifically designated for special ed use.

Even if the Federal law allows such a diversion (which it does—half can be diverted).

We’d also like to think elected officials wouldn’t allow such an abuse when brought to their attention.

Then there’s what is going on in Huntley District 158.

I wonder if it would be if school administrators or board members have a special needs child.

Board member Aileen Seedorf seems to understand the long standing law which says the district is required to provide an appropriate education to every child. At the July 14th town hall-style meeting, School Board member Shawn Green did express what I took to be sincere concern about how the Federal stimulus money on special education would be spent.

I have written about how the administrators have proposed how to spend the Federal Stimulus funds.

A lot of the money is still being recommended to expand a reading program used in regular ed which the special ed parents don’t want.

The moms and dads don’t want it because there is no vendor-independent research that shows it works with special ed children.

The attention spans required for the programmed instruction are about 20 to 30 minutes. That’s a long time for challenged kids.

It seems likely that the massive expenditure will be redeployed into regular student use when it becomes obvious that the program doesn’t provide much benefit tospecial ed students.

The special ed parents want programs that will work for their children.

From what I heard at the July 14th town hall-style meeting with administrators and school board members, those parents would give those decision-makers the old grade of “needs improvement.”

It would take quite a reporter to capture their disillusionment.  I surely am not skilled enough to convey it.

But, it is clear to me that administrators need to listen to the parents of special education children and not spend a huge sum on a reading program the parents don’t want and for which the parents can find no credible research that says will work.

I remember the education I received from a District 300 mother back in the 1970′s when special education laws were being crafted.  I remember her every time I drive past her Huntley Road home on the way to Spring Hill Mall.  She said to finance her son’s education at Summit School, they had subdivided their property and would sell of the lots.

Unfortunately, most of the parents with special ed kids in Huntley School District 158 don’t have similar resources.  If the Huntley School Board doesn’t provide for their children’s education, ones who might be able to cope in society will just “slip through the cracks,” as the trite cliche says.

It’s really much more serious than that.

Ask a parent.

I went to one of the town hall meetings put on by Huntley School District 158 in mid-July.

Discussed were how the extra federal dollars for special ed from the Federal ARRA Stimulus Funds should be spent.

Parents had all kinds of practical suggestions on how the money should be spent to improve student learning.

It took months of waiting for top administrators to come up with their revised list.

Did the paid government officials listen?

Doesn’t look like it.

The parents are getting plenty of money recommended to be spent on the reading program.

But, they said they didn’t want the money spent on that.

Administrators are recommending among other things, the purchase of the items below for $80,550.

It reads more like an office equipment list not a special ed budget.

Almost ten grand for filing cabinets sticks out.
The whole list can be reviewed here.
Type in page 115 for the electronic page number after it downloads.  The download is about 31 Mb.  It may be slow.

Some of what you will see;

• Refrigerator for social workers, $200
• Tables for social workers, 15 @ $200   $3,000
• Printers for Speech Dept, 15 @ $500 each.  $7,500
• Printer for Speech Dept, 1 $1,000
• Laptops for Speech Dept, 2 @ $2,000 each   $4,000
• Computers for speech students, 10 @ $1000 each
• 6 locking lateral file cabinets, $4,800 at $800 apiece for Chesak School
• File cabinets for Conley School, $5,000
• Printers, administration building and high school, 10 @ $900 each  $9,000
• Printers, 2, Conley School  $700
• Printer ink, Conley School $400
• Ink Cartridges, Leggee School  25 at $50 each  $1,250
• Tables and chairs, Conley School $1,500
• Tables, 5 , Marlowe School $800
• Laser Printers, 5, Marlowe School $2,000
• Plenty of binders.  Conley $800.
• Copy machine and printer $1,600
• Laptops, 10 for Chesak School  $10,000
• Laptops, 10 for Heineman School  $10,000
• Laptop for conference room, Leggee School $1,000
• Laptop for conference room, Mackaben School $1,000
• 3 Laptops for students, Mackaben School $3,000
• Room dividers, Marlowe School $1,000
• Mileage reimbursement for staff $10,000

That’s not all, of course. Just a tad over $80,000.

$1.5 million came to the Huntley School District for special ed.

Want to see where the rest is going?

Take a look for yourself.

The special ed parents are.

I hope no Congressman or U.S. Senator representing this area brags about how all the money went to help special education students.

Maybe you’ll read it here first. Increases in money to local school districts have been decided.

The information is online at the State Board of Education’s web site.

Begin the gnashing of teeth.

Or will it be sighs of relief?

Some school superintendents preferred to pretend the $160 increase per student was going to be zero.

Result?

Outlook “bleak.”

When you pretend it’s zero then you can publicly say the outlook is “bleak.”

I was at a meeting last week where the special ed parents weren’t buying into Huntley Supt. John Burkey’s desire to appropriate $800,000 of IDEA (special ed) federal stimulus funds to balance his proposed budget.

By my quick math, the foundation level increase is more than $1.25 million for Huntley School District 158.

This is a far cry from the “zero” that board members approved in the district’s preliminary budget.

And, this is not the first time a school district has predicated actions on no increase in state aid to education.

Remember the last District 300 referendum?

Now, the cat’s out of the bag.

The foundation level increase is $160 per student.

Unrealistic projections are just that.

There is nothing “fiscally conservative” about being purposely unrealistic.