Concerned that leaky roofs are putting their children at risk and threatening their property values, parents had plenty to say to Scott O’Connell at Monday’s D58 school board meeting.
O’Connell, whose threats of litigation have twice brought the district’s planned sale of $10 million in life-safety bonds to a halt, was the focus of the nearly 200 people who filled the Indian Trail School gym for the Dec. 14 board meeting. A candlelight demonstration organized by the Whittier School PTA had preceded the meeting.
“Scott says he represents the taxpayers and is watching out for our money, but all you’re doing is wasting time and money,” said Debbie Drews. “Stop impeding the progress. Do the job you’re here for. Get the job done.”
Linda Clevenger suggested that O’Connell consider resigning if he feels so strongly that the action approved by the board is “so illegal, so heinous.” O’Connell has questioned the use of life-safety bonds to fix the roofs, as well as the estimates provided for the work.
“You were not elected king of the district, you were elected a board member,” she said. “After the discussion is made and a decision finalized, the board speaks as one.”
“What I’m asking today is either for you to resign or to follow Roberts Rules of Order as part of this board and do the right thing,” said Clevenger, who described O’Connell’s tactics as “bullying.”
Chris Hepner prefaced his remarks by reading the oath administered to school board members. “I respectfully request you adhere to the oath you took,” he said, adding that voters will ultimately pass judgment on the board’s action come the next election.
Joe Olejniczak, a Kingsley dad whose photos of the school’s leaky hallway circulated widely in advance of the meeting, said he found the combative nature of the board “alarming.”
“If you saw a picture of a Christmas tree with water coming out of electrical outlets, would you move here?” he asked. “How long would you let that leak live in your house?”
Todd Krause, a candidate for the board last spring, suggested the board consider pursuing a five-cent referendum to raised funds to fix the roofs. “Due to the publicity Scott has done, I think it would actually pass this time.”
But perhaps the most controversial speaker of the evening was a woman District 58 later identified as Tracy Dalton of Lemont, who attended the meeting with a companion, Janet Hughes, a board member for the Lemont-Bromberek Combined 113A school district.
Dalton, who spoke “as a taxpayer and an advocate for taxpayers,” voiced her support of O’Connell. She posed four questions concerning the roof replacements and the life-safety bonds, one of which she described as “very, very important especially for us taxpayers who have to increase our taxers to support the bonds.”
Dalton responded vaguely when asked by D58 Board President Liz Davis to name her attendance area. As a resident of Lemont, she does not pay taxes to D58.
Dalton and her companion Hughes were later observed laughing by Kerry Quirin as she addressed the board. “I can’t believe I’m sharing my faith with people causing this dissension,” Quirin said in a reference to O’Connell, whose children attend parochial school.
Excerpt from The Reporter article today:
O’Connell said parents are mistakenly equating his reluctance to borrow money with the refusal to replace roofs.
“Those are two separate issues,” O’Connell said. “The roofs will be replaced. The only question is where the money is coming from.”
Response:
Um, no, Scott O’Connell. We parents are not mistaken. You are keeping our kids from being safe by repeatedly DELAYING this decision that has already been made by the board. Your threats of litigation have had the consequence of putting our kids at risk.
There are no two separate issues. There’s only one issue–and that is YOU.
p.s. I also wonder if Janet Hughes would advocate that Downers Grove adopt the same code of conduct rules that are in place for Lemont school board members?
http://www.sd113a.org/vnews/display.v/SEC/Board%20of%20Education|Code%20of%20Conduct
(NOTE: Cut and paste the entire link above to work!)
How come no one addressed the real issue…
Why is the board asking to issue bonds, some 40% higher in amount than is needed to replace the roofs?
just asking.
oh I forgot…its for the CHILDREN…so we should borrow as much as possible no matter what we need…we’ll figure it out later.
I 100% disagree with you Jill. The two are mutually exclusive issues. This board needs to be fiscally responsible with our tax dollars. If there is money in the budget ($7.8 million according to O‘Connell) then it should be spent. The schools keep increasing the tax levy every year that cannot happen if we want to keep people living in their homes. I know that is not of concern to you Whittier parents in your McMansions. This board needs to start providing us value for our tax dollars and stop the fighting with one board member. Why take out a huge bond if we don’t have to. Besides the roofs cant be replaced while the kids are in school anyway. So we have until the spring to figure out how to fund the roof replacements. I want the roof at Kingsley replaced just like every other parent does. Lets call it like it is people don’t like O’Connell and they want him gone. That is the bottom line.
This town is getting very expensive to live in (just look up all the tax increases for next year) and I don’t see anyone’s salaries going up except for our teachers, and first responders. Just sayin…You need to be open minded and find long term solutions. This is not time for band aids.
I’ve never seen people so unwilling to pay for anything resembling infrastructure improvements/repairs.
I don’t see anyone here unwilling to pay for anything. Please re-read the posts. Thanks.
Chad there isn’t money “in the budget;” that money is in reserves. Big difference.
Downers Grove has $14 million in reserves; should all of the $4 million shortfall been used by reserves then according to your logic? Is it time to issue debt then when the reserves are dry? Too little, too late then.
Bonds aren’t band-aids, they are one of the longest investment debt instruments available.
Your McMansion comment is borderline tacky. What difference does it make what kind of house someone lives in when it comes to the safety and education of their children?
I understand what bonds are. Don’t get me wrong I love the McMansions over there on the North side of town. They pay more property taxes thus they pay more into the school district than I do. I just figured since people are being snarky I would follow suit!
The board isn’t fighting with O’Connell, O’Connell is fighting with the board. O’Connell should have his say, vote, and then abide by the majority decision.
It’s not like choosing a bond over reserves is some zany scheme that he needs to stop at all cost.
Do any of the D58 parents truly believe that borrowing more than you need will really make their children smarter or better educated?
BTw- I agree with Mom…OConnell should cast his vote, proclaim why he is voting against it and move on.
Just another scheme to pile on tax free dividends for the country clubbers. And another $60 million for the Water Com. fiasco. Then the Wall Streeters can sell derivatives on top of the bonds.
From the inforomation I’ve seen, the challenges in conscensus could be overcome by answering the following: (A) What is the optimal amount that District 58 carry in reserve funds? (B) How much does it cost to fix the roofs (conservative estimate)? I know we have wicked smart people on the Financial Advisory Board. However, I can’t find information that would provide the answers. I am hoping someone could answer those questions or give me a place to look so I don’t spend hours on a search. Maybe these questions have been discussed by the board. Maybe they haven’t. I don’t know. Maybe I’ve simplified it too much. However, I believe if both sides would discuss these things in a civil manner without resorting to disruptive tactics we could make progress on this and similar issues and move forward.
Quite honestly, most of you don’t understand how the levy and the taxes work. It’s not like it’s a big pot of money and they can just decide where it all goes – there are certain funds for salaries and such and certain funds for the improvements – you can’t “take” the salaries (which are under contract and negotiated) and use that for roofs… you also can’t take maintenance funds and use them for salaries.. whatever – most of you are not informed on a lot of this or know half the story – no offense.. a few just want to stir the pot – have fun with that… I won’t bite
If A board – ANY board makes a vote and the MAJORITY rules – then YOU as a board member must support the vote and move on – you then say WE the BOARD voted for this – not well I DIDNT VOTE FOR IT (WHINE WHINE WHINE)… doesn’t matter what board, what vote – MAJORITY rules and MOVE ON…. or RESIGN – better yet!
Debbie, I agree with you that the supermajority don’t know (me included). And I agree the funds are held in reserve for good reason. However, I think you would agree that it would be more beneficial to shed light on the subject. Especially when you want the support of us that don’t have all the facts. It’s like most issues 10% strongly agree, 10% strongly disagree and 80% are in the middle. I personally am looking for answers I don’t have. I agree we need to move forward and I certainly am not baiting you. I simply wish those in “the know” would give me information to use when confronted with a differing view point. When people ask me what’s right I tell them we need the bonds. And believe me, a lot of people in my neighborhood in the 80% ask me. Don’t be so defensive. I’m on your side. As far as the point about majority rules. I agree, but I need better information to make the case because anyone who has seen “12 Angry Men” may be leery of the affects of group think. As the good general said, “We’re fighting for hearts and minds.”
Scott O’Connel’s claim that there is money for the roofs – because we have a balance in our ‘working cash’ fund is misleading. If the district spent those funds on roofs, it would not be able to make payroll for at least the last month of the fiscal year.
Finding a way to finance the roofs claimed the attention of the Financial Advisory Committee from its first meeting. The issue of bonds is the most cost-effective way to raise the funds, given the pressing need to replace roofs. We discussed a referendum to raise taxes in small increments as a cheaper means of financing, since the district would not need to pay interest expense. However, if the referendum failed, the district would be left with insufficient operating funds before other capital could be raised.
I think it’s interesting that the Lemont BOE is supporting Mr. O’Connell in this. The Lemont BOE is in terrible financial shape. And the reason why is that they dipped into their reserves to pay for $2 million of life-safety issues. And now they have an unbalanced budget and have to make staff and program reductions as a result. If they had bonded, they wouldn’t be losing teachers. Talk to Lemont residents – they are furious over this. Lemont BOE members should stay far away from making financial recommendations to our board.
Thanks for the explanation Craig. Your assessment that we can’t pay the teachers for the last fiscal month brings up another question.
Why can’t we pay them?
I think I know. The ever reliable and rock steady IL state and Federal governments take to long to get us the our tax money in time for the district to reimburse the working cash fund. Sad…If we ran our own districts and kicked the government out we would have plenty of money because we would be funding the education system locally. I hope people don’t think that the funds we get from the government are free dollars for education. They are our tax dollars and most of our tax dollars go to fund the Chicago Public School System. I guess that is how our community and others across the country think is the best way to fund our children’s education. The prevailing sentiment on this blog is that we don’t care how much we spend on education as long as its for the kids. Well folks put your money where your mouth! Kick the government out of our children’s education once and for all. It wouldn’t cost you anymore than the government is already taking from you now. You would just see how much you are paying into the district on your property tax bill.
Thanks Craig! If the FAC has evaluated and chosen to issue bonds, I’m in agreement and have the confidence that smart people made a good decision. It looks like my other question has been answered in today’s Trib. “The State Superintendant of Education, Chris Koch rejected O’Connell’s charges (of inflated estimates). Based upon the review of the bid results provided, the number of bidders and the estimates, the district is getting good prices for the work that has been bid.” Furthermore, O’Connell “accused the state and regional boards of education for acting as a rubber stamp.” Maybe O’Connell needs to spend more time reviewing the Zabruder films or researching who actually shot JR so he could stop impeding progress in the community he lives in.
Personally I think while we need to fix this crisis we can’t have the district raisin levy’s every year especially with the City Stupidly jacking up taxes next year…..
That’s just it John, I can’t recall the levy even flat over the past decade.
Julie, thanks for your contribution regarding the Lemont predicament. By spending on roofs without the proceeds of the bonds, our district would find itself in a deficit condition. The alternatives are fairly grim at that point – and could include State downgrading of the financial condition of the district.
Chad, I think more financial transparency through better financial reporting is absolutely essential, so I fully agree with you on that point. The Financial Advisory Committee has worked with Jim Popernik, the district controller, to develop summary monthly financial reports to be distributed to the board. The reports include a schedule of investments and a summary schedule of fund balances and expenditures, showing comparisons to the prior periods and the budget. Next, we need to develop reports related to the education fund expenses, including benchmark ratios and detail of program expenses.
Just an observation – in my humble opinion, political and economic ideology can prejudice our ability to find practical, reasonable solutions. Nobody wants their tax dollar wasted, and we should all want the district leadership – board and administration – to go the extra mile to show us how they are doing their best to be fiscally prudent in this economic environment. That’s just basic, sound management and communication. For our part, as parents and taxpayers, we should be willing to keep an open mind and support those who are working to find practical solutions. By letting a dissident board member hijack the agenda, we risk taking our eye off the prize.
I hear you Craig. But I ask you this. When will the district tax levy decrease or even run flat? Wages are declining yet the levy increases every year. I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop. I am not willing to change my standard of living, possibly sell my house, just to stay in a school district. There are plenty of excellent school districts in this state. Just sayin…
Craig, can you please explain the levy in terms of actual $$$ for us? I believe I read somewhere it works out to be around $15-$30 (depending on home value. I think I read an example of a 300k house somewhere).
I don’t think any of us can complain about a $30 tax hike for our schools. Downers Grove is a GREAT community, in a great location. And we do enjoy lower taxes than many communities. Raise my levy $30. I’m not going anywhere.
Julie D.
that’s just for d58 portion of your bill. Not the Village, County, D99, Forest Preserve and oh yes…Park District. that also would assume your assessment stayed the same..which I believe overall DG township went up. So I guess an extra million here by each taxing body could add up to an extra zero on that $30, if you accept all the tax increases.
Frustrating, especially since it would appear that d58 intends to borrow more than they need to replace the roofs.
At least the Village is making hard choices when it comes to fiscal responsibilty. doesn’t appear that matters to those in charge of schools. No one has yet to make a presentation or counter the assertion that the $10mm in bond offering is 40% more than required to fix the leaky roofs. Until that question is answered to tax payers satisfaction, I will assume the whole issue a farce.
I have asked Yoda aka…Mark Thoman to come up with a post that shows all the increases that our fine town is going to see in the coming year. I think it is going to be a can’t miss post!!
Yes, I am aware that is just the D58 portion of the bill. I am still fine with the extra $30, regardless of what the rest of taxes do.
…Yoda?
The $10mm bond offering was appealed and justified by the State Superintendant of Education (Chris Koch). I quote the Local section of the Trib (page 11) on 12/17/2009 – “In a response to O’Connell’s letter (of objection), State Superintendant of Education Chris Koch rejected O’Connell’s charges. Based upon the review of the bid results provided, the number of bidders and the estimates, the district is getting good prices for the work that has been bid.” The board followed a process and made a decision. O’Connell protested and appealed to a higher level of authority that he thought would substantiate his “hunch” (delay tactic) and was ultimately found to be wrong. Now people want to support further delay tactics. I don’t get it. You have schools that cancel library and gym when it rains and you have safety issues when water is running off of the electical infrastucture. Not to mention, my uber-cost conscious friends, it will cost more to fix as you let those leaks fester (mold, structural damage, etc.). I think it was a fiscally sound fellow named Ben Franklin that said “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Let’s at least pay the “table stakes” here and have the basics. This is Downers Grove, not Ford Heights.
May the “farce” be with you….
Yeah. What Joe O. said.
Go Joe O. You rock! Raise my taxes–all of them Park District, Dist 58, County, Forest Preserve–it’s part of life, just like traffic jams, rainy days, sunny days, the biggest pain in your ass at the moment, I love DG and I’m not going anywhere!
Well I wish notsaying WOULD say because he/she sounds an AWFUL lot like Tracy Dalton and Ms. Hughes… let’s keep the taxes the same for ALL the taxing bodies – let the roofs fall onto the kids’ heads; the parks dry up, fill with weeds, trash and rodents, the streets fill with potholes or floods – YAY! And notsaying would be the only one living here but they would have low taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They probably DON”T live here! If you have all the answers but have to hide from us, then your opinion doesn’t count in MY opinion!
I don’t want higher taxes either (but in my little house they wouldn’t go up much anyway), but where do you propose the money come from then? What is your solution!! I am SO tired of the PROBLEM SEEKERS who do not want to be SOLVERS!!
Many here have their heads on straight and are seeking solutions and understanding…. Go them!
Ms Drews,
I think notsaying is asking a question that I think is reasonable. Can you answer it? Why is the board trying to borrow $10mm to fix roofs when it would appear the actual cost is much less?
I certainly want good schools and that means structurally sound schools, and if that means our taxes have to go up, so be it. But no one appears to be answering his/her question. I think its a pretty good question too.
are they in fact, doing that? LEGALLY the bond amount is not illegal and the letter read was if there was money left (and I don’t know the figures, but I do know some refuse to post here because of the “anonymity factor”) they were also able to keep that to use for other improvement projects
I think notsaying is here to make trouble MikeK but hey that’s just me!
If what you are saying is correct, Debbie, why not ask for the actual amount needed, By inflating the amount and then saying, well with the extra money we are going to do some other projects? What other projects? No wonder people are leery.
The district has a list of projects, all of which presumably are acceptable as life-safety projects. This information has been discussed publicly, but I don’t have time to look for links, etc. right now.
Like all governmental units, the school district has specific bonding authority which it may exercise without going to referendum. The village also has done this, issuing bonds to pay for stormwater improvements.
Whether or not individuals agree with the wisdom of issuing bonds is open to debate. It is, however, legal.
The bonds are being issued with a repayment schedule which will replace the current amount we are spending on the existing bonds. Currently, approximately $1.2 million per year is being paid on existing debt originally issued to establish the district’s technology platform almost 10 years ago. These bonds are due to be paid off soon, so the new issue of notes was designed to fit within that existing annual $1.2 million expenditure. Therefore, no new increase in the annual tax will be needed, but there will also be no reduction in tax which would be expected with the retirement of the old debt.
Regarding the amount requested, the need to spend $10 million on roof replacement and other life/safety projects (including asbestos floor tile removal) should not be in dispute, and has been a matter of public record for more than two years. The necessary inspections by architects and engineers have been performed, and the replacement need has been verified. It’s true that the entire $10 million won’t be spent in the year that it is received, but will be spread out over two to three years. However, the costs of multiple fundings is higher than a single funding, so it is more efficient to sell the bonds at one time.
People-Silent Night, Holy Night……enjoy your families for now. District 58 Relations Director, Jennifer Waldorf, said ALL questions will be answered after Winter Break. Try to feel the Peace of the Season now………..
If this information has been public for 2 years then why was it not conveyed to the public? Just wondering? Why not show the tax payers what is needed. Maybe we wouldn’t even be discussing this if the board and or district had done a better job marketing this effort.
I think many of us may not have known because we haven’t been involved in the FAC or BOE meetings. Lesson learned.
Craig, once again thank you for the info. It is enlightening and I hope it makes its way beyond this blog and into the public. I know Joe has conveyed it to our Kingsley parents. I hope it makes it out to the rest of the district too.
Andrea could not agree with you more. You read some poeple say well if you attended any meetings you’d know, like somehow that makes us not worthy and STFU. You feel it dripping off their words like venom from a snake.
No, most of us don’t attend meetings. So we don’t deserve to know because we don’t go to meetings? We elect the board members to represent us and that means telling us what’s going on.
When I urge people to attend meetings its not merely to go on a fact finding mission. If the government entity is doing its job correctly the information is readily available. Our village does a good job in getting the information out to the residents. Why do you think the budget process was so heated and well attended. I urge folks who have a major gripe or something to say to show up and put it on the record. Showing up to a meeting in person shows that you really want to get your point across. Emails and phone calls work to. If you email your concern make sure that it is read into the public record and state your name and address with it. That is how you can let our elected officials know that more discussion should be had on a subject. I hope that clarifies why I feel it is invaluable to show up to meetings once and a while.
The budget and any financials are always published – if you don’t go to meetings you still have access to them -how ? I am not sure but I know they much of it on the website now – they don’t “publish” it in the paper (but many would not read it anyway) but it IS public info for all to read/access/see etc. there is nothing “hidden” I DO know this much
Craig,
thank you for the input on the size of the amount being borrowed. Last I had heard the roof replacement is some 6-7mm dollars. If that is correct, then really “other” life safety issues amount for an additional 50%.
I understand the roofs being covered in life safety, but a laundry list of items gets a bit vague. I think I interpret mis-trust by the electorate over D58 and its “financial” needs. Unfortunately, the major goof up a couple of years ago has made the road a major steep uphill climb every time d58 says it needs to borrow. Nobody trusts the district’s ability to tell the truth, or at least explain it properly.
I think those who are giving Jennifer Waldorf grief about not getting the information fast enough need to back off. Over the last year, I think she’s done a fantastic job of increasing communications with the parents of DG58. Does she have more work ahead? Absolutely, the next steps are clearly improving the communications with the community as a whole. Let start with getting the new financial reports that are starting to be used, the budget and every meeting ever recorded online. This things take time and money. I would send an email to Jennifer letting her know how important it is to you to make this information easily accessible. She’ll listen and respond.
Here’s where I geek-out a bit: The largest issue on getting these items to everyone is the current way the district publishes content to the web. As of last spring, all content was publish through the district’s webmaster. We need to change this so we are not reliant on one person to get this out to us. The District needs to switch over to a content management system (CMS) so those who are responsible can publish the content themselves. I manage fare number of websites that use CMSs and for many people it’s as simple to using as word to publish stories, links, documents and multimedia files. 99 and the village clearly use some sort of CMS I think it’s time for 58 get on board.
Todd, What’s with the bowler hat? Life is a caberet?
MikeK, the amount to be borrowed is directly associated with the life/safety items which were enumerated in the application. The district can’t ‘over-borrow’ with the bonds, and can’t issue the bonds if they have enough cash to pay for those items on the list. The district has established in the application to the regional and state approving authorities that this was the case. I’m not sure about the $6-7 million cost you cite, are you sure you aren’t excluding the money committed by the district to pay for roofs in anticipation of the bond funding? The bonds were to have been sold this summer, and a portion of the proceeds were to be used to pay for roofs that were done over the summer. In fact, Jim Popernik worked out a payment schedule for the roofers which would be delayed until Sept/Oct. Using the tax receipts that were planned to support operations, he has been able to honor that. However, without selling the bonds and using some of that cash as ‘reimbursement’, the district could have an operating deficit. Without the bonds, serious cuts would have to be made in operating expenses. There isn’t much in the budget to cut except transportation (which includes the expense of busing private school students) and salary expense.
Regarding the credibility gap between the district and the community – I agree with you, not enough has been done over the past two years to mend the harm. The new leadership in the district and on the board have the chance to set a different tone and course of action. I do know that previous board members were very reluctant to address the public because they were concerned their activity would run afoul of state regulations prohibiting board members from promoting tax referenda. This general reluctance may still linger.
Regarding Todd’s comment about information access, I do think that the district could take a huge step forward by posting much more information online. And while I think that access to more information in electronic form is helpful, I think that a dump of the raw information will be difficult to navigate without explanations and interpretation to provide better insight to the reader.
Craig – I totally agree, disorganized info and a dump of raw data does nothing except cause more confusion and mistrust. The district already has enough of this. I think it would be great if you and the other FAC board members could explain the nature of the numbers. Also, I’d ask for it to be taken a step further and have the FAC create “understanding this report” info sheet for each report. If you need help with any of this, please feel free to contact me.
Wondering? – The bowler hat is part of the logo from my business. It’s not something I intentionally put on my comments. It’s automatically pulled from an external site.