Fed up with D58 member Scott O’Connell’s attempts to halt the sale of $10 million in life-safety bonds, district parents have organized to request his resignation from the school board.
The grassroots effort, led by parents at Whittier and Kingsley schools, asks like-minded residents to e-mail O’Connell at his D58 mailbox, soconnell@dg58.org.
Parents also have been encouraged to e-mail Supt. Darlene Ruscitti at the DuPage Regional Office of Education to “explain your disgust with O’Connell’s antics and your demand for explanation on why Janet Hughes, a Lemont school board member, was at our board meeting on Monday night armed with her friend, Tracy Dalton who posed as a Downers Grove taxpayer and spoke on behalf of O’Connell,” according to one e-mail in current circulation.
Hughes and Dalton were conspicuously in attendance the Dec. 14 D58 school board meeting. Dalton made a statement in support of O’Connell, then demurred when asked by board president Elizabeth Davis to indicate her attendance area.
Ryan DeProsperis at The Ups in Downers Grove blog did a little digging on Hughes and Dalton, which he shares in this post.
Quick question regarding the actions of the Lemont school board Member could they be fired for breaking ethics over this one?
Quick question…How is it possible that a threat of litigation by one person bring this process to a screeching halt? I would think Chapman and Cutler would shrug their shoulders and issue the bond.
Good and good luck. But I don’t know how effective the Dupage regional superintendent will be with Lemont’s board of ed. They’re in Cook County.
Counsel has to issue a legal opinion prior to proceeding with the bond issuance. Before that, any board members can object to the bond issuance without bringing the whole process to a halt. This opportunity passed in June of 2009.
It’s my opinion that O’Connell waited until now because he knew that bringing forward litigation would stop this whole process.
With regard to ethics, that’s a great question. I’m not sure about it though, as theoretically, it’s an opinion held instead of an ethical statute broken. I don’t know about that though, that’s for an attorney to decide.
If this decision is sound, why are we letting the process come to a screeching halt? Why are Chapman and Cutler, the district’s bond counsel, backing off because of a threat? Why couldn’t the board counter-sue (for legal fees)?
How soon do we need the bond issued, and what is the soonest work could begin on the roofs? Do we have any wiggle room?
Out in the corporate world, boards make decisions and then move forward. I can’t imagine a board member anywhere else fighting back because he was in the minority. Funny that Mr. O’Connell would like to affect such great change, but he’s just another cog in the dysfunctional wheel.
What ethics violation would attending a public meeting fall under? Is support of Scott O’Connell an ethics violation? Is speaking in support of Mr. O’Connell a violation?
Being a Lemont school board member does not preclude you from attending other schools’ Board of Education meetings, this includes Financial Advisory Committee meetings. That’s why they call them “open meetings”.
If the bonds are legal, then issue them already!
Hate to speak for others, but I believe the complaints were not that the two ladies were from Lemont, but rather that they spoke as residents of Downers Grove, then were disrespectful, laughing and talking while others spoke at the meeting.
Anyone is welcome to attend a D58 meeting, but speakers should truthfully disclose their relationship to the district—as resident, taxpayer, parent, visitor, etc.—and certainly should give other speakers the courtesy of their attention.
I ran into Scott O’Connell in the grocery store yesterday. Since Scott and I have many mutual aquaintances, I asked him about his opposition to the Bond Issuance. From what I read in the paper, he did not sound justified in his opposition to the bond issuance. I learned a lot from our discussion as follows:
District 58 has enough money (if properly budgeted), to pay for the roofs in question. When I looked the September 25, 2009 Treasurer’s report (the most recent online) there is $7,800,000 in the working fund. I am not sure why we would be incurring debt, when we have almost $8,000,000 on hand already. Why would incur unnecessary interest expense.
My understanding is that the projections for the roof replacements are much lower than the $10 million that is in the bond issuance. When you issue bonds, you have to pay interest which makes the cost much higher than the $10 mil requested.
My understanding is that the Board is using the Life/Safety argument to circumvent the need to go to referendum for a bond issuance.
Did you know that the current Health/Life Safety Code was instituted as a result the the tragic fire at the Our Lady of the Angel School in 1958 ? In the 1970’s, Section 17-2.11 of the Illinois School Code was amended to authorize the sale of bonds for Fire Prevention and Safety purposes.
In the 1980’s, Section 2-3.12 of the Illinois School Code was amended to require a “re-survey” of schools. Section 17-2.11 was again amended to add to the list of uses of Fire Prevention and Safety tax: the reconstruction, or when necessary, construction of new buildings and asbestos abatement.
In the 1990’s, Section 2-3.12 and numerous related sections of the School Code dealing with Health/Life Safety and Fire Prevention and Safety financing were revised. Once again, Section 17-2.11 was amended to authorize the use of Fire Prevention and Safety tax for handicapped accessibility. I don’t see roof replacement as a reason to issue Bonds using the Life00/Safety Code. In addition, these roofs have been budgeted for since 2001.
While the Life/Safety arguments may be common by many BOEs to use circumvent the law, it does not make it legal, or right. I believe that Scott is trying to do the right and legal thing on behalf of the taxpayers.
I certainly hope that more people (including myself) start taking a closer look at the financials to find out what the real issues are.
eirosie – Please read some of the informative posts from Craig Cook that addressed your questions last week.
eirosie, I think you were hoodwinked by Mr. O’Connell’s charm. Ha.
They failed to get the referendum passed that is true. If the board bonds it out they are circumventing the system. We all know that and accept that by this point. Either way the roofs need to be replaced. I do feel for too long the government has floated bonds as an acceptable way to fund capital improvements. I am sure its taught that way in college these days. It doesn’t mean that its right though.
Eirosie,
Thank you for your explanation. I have been wondering the reason why BOE has not moved forward with its decision to sell bond. It totally makes sense, and it appears that Scott has been taking BOE member position more seriously and making its decision accountable to the residents of Downer Grove.
As you mentioned in another thread, I am sure that the BOE members had ill-preconceived idea who Scott was , and there was no doubt that they were informed how he voted for the 31-cents increase in 2006. Additionally, although majority of residents have benefited from his tireless questioning, some residents have only focused on his tactics to deal with “good ole boys” against his accomplishments.
According to author Robert M. Pirsig, “…..But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair that cause, and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government, there’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding” (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance). It seems to me that Scott understands how “the systematic pattern of thought that produced” the current financial disaster of DG58, and has been working persistently to repair the core cause of the problem.
Eirosie-did you know that Lemont used their reserves (the 7.8 million, in other words, that Dist 58 currently has) and consequently, had to cut teachers and programs because they could not make payroll? Bonds are the means in which to pay for the roofs, not the reserves.
This whole thing is multifaceted issues.
Issue 1 – Roof and other life safety issues need to be fixed in the district.
This is the no brainier. Even though Scott has held opposition to the bond issue, in his defense he’s not against getting the roofs fixed. He’s just against the way the board has decided to pay for them. The biggest issue in my mind here is that previous boards never properly budgeted for these repair issues when they should have, leaving it for the current board to deal with.
Issue 2 – How do we pay for these: existing funds, referendum or bond.
I’ve been following this issue for over a year now. First off using existing funds is not an option and would be fiscally irresponsible (see issue 3). When they decided to go with the life-safety bonds, they felt there was no other choice. The .31 tax levy referendum had failed a year before and was outrageously high to begin with. As a result, the BoE couldn’t afford the publicity of another failed referendum even if it was a more modest nickel referendum that was proposed along side the bond issue. In addition, no one knew what to expect with the economy, which at the time seemed to be on a downward spiral plus interest rates were at an all time low. This ultimately made the bond issue the most sensible choice.
Issue 3 – The Working Cash Fund (WCF)
Personally, I believe this is a non-issue but SOC is always sharing his objections to this. With the exception of how Scott conducts himself on the board, it’s his opposition to the WCF that I have the biggest objection to. Its very obvious he has little understanding of finance or cash accounting if he truly believes it would be good to eliminate it. By paying for the repairs that were made last summer out of the working cash fund, the BoE has put the district in danger of deficit spending at the end of its fiscal year if they don’t pay it back from the money raised from the bond issue. It’s critical in business to have rainy day cash, and this is also true for government. The concept that government should not have unspent money at the end of the year is how we end up with deficit spending, debt and higher taxes. The bond would, at the very least, control the interest rate of debts and keep the WCF in tack. As many have mentioned, Craig Cook does an excellent job of explaining this.
Issue 4 – How to prevent this in the future without more debt or raising taxes.
My biggest complaint about the bond issue, the BoE and Scott objections. No one is bringing a long term solution to prevent this in the future. I can’t say I have one, but I would encourage everyone to come together to find a solution now.
Todd,
Why should this board or any governmental unit ever look for a long term solution when they can just bond it out? That is my whole point about this issue. Its not about the roofs for me. Its about the governments utter lack of fiscal responsibility for as long as any of us have been alive! I don’t care how much accounting back ground someone has, if you don’t have the money you don’t have it. PERIOD! Any moron can understand that math. The problem is that this practice has gone on for so long that it is now standard operating procedure. I think we can all see with the economy how standard operating procedures work. If we all were more fiscally responsible the economy would grow slower but at a rate that could be sustained. I could totally understand the use of bonds if these roofs needed to be replaced because there was a fire or tornado. That is not the case. Think of it this way…If it was your house and your roof that needed to be replaced wouldn’t you plan for it? Most homeowners start to save money for these kind of expenses right? Like I said I can totally understand the need for credit from time to time but our government makes it standard practice. Ok, off my soap box! Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas!!
Todd, nice job breaking down the issues with facts. I would like to know how the “good ole boy network” thrives when we have four new board members from very diverse backgorunds. It seems like, when devoid of facts, people tend to confuse long commentary with providing information. Gotta go snowboard!
The rainy day is here and the picture of the Kingsley hallway proves it. As everyone notes, the need for repairs on a continuing basis is a given, but budgeting for the funding is not. Still is not. On that point everyone is agreed; common ground to build upon.
When I asked Martin back in the day what Plan B would be if the referendum was not approved he proclaimed there was no Plan B. Some things never change: 58 will not get the bonds issued without the bond counsel approval, and counsel will not approve with the threat of a lawsuit and on and on- and still no Plan B. Analyzing past effort can yield good information for future planning, yet 58 are still singly focused on what will not go forward. Why is that? Can we see Plan B please?
Put it to the taxpayers in a referendum. Ask for exactly what you need and not a penny more. I’m guessing PTA’s and parents and groups like DG Cares would organize an effort to get it passed. When’s the next time a referendum question can be put on a ballot? November?
In the meantime patch fix the leaks to buy some time, do not hang your hopes on the referendum being passed, and start budgeting $500,000/year for roofs (or whatever amount seems prudent). Show taxpayers what the consequences are, not what they might be. If cuts are needed elsewhere, or classes get larger, or fees go higher (all likely) then it is upon the 58 administration to come up with a budget that does this. Plan for the worst and hope for the best.
I’m just going to throw this out there as one of those suggestions for issue 4 in Todd’s post. What would the long term cost of rain roofs being built over the flat roofs at the schools?
Does a pitched roof offer less maintenance/easier to maintain than a flat roof?
Just wondering
Merry Christmas all
Chad, I agree 100% but current issue is not a matter of planning, it’s a matter of finding a solution now. In addition, we need a budget plan so future boards are not put in the situation that requires bonding the issue out.
I hope you all come to the BOE meeting on January 11th. I think you all have valid points and good ideas. They need to be heard. Do you think we can compromise? Do you think SOC would be willing to compromise? The more ideas/solutions presented, the more chance of a compromise, in my opinion. Show up.
I believe there should be a plan on how to avoid this issue in the future. This plan should become a PART OF the funding for the replacement of the roofs today. If you do not fix the problem, which is financial planning, then how can you ask tax payers to go along with borrowing to put out fires.
Greg, I think the idea of a pitched roof is perfect. What about steel roofs? Don’t they last longer? I am guessing they cost more. Something to think about.
Sparta – I don’t think that compromise is not SOC vocabulary. He’s idealistic to a fault. Also, I think it would be great if everyone who has commented on this blog in the last few articles would would show up to the board meetings and share their honest opinions with the board about this whole issue. I wish more people would come to the meeting and address the issues and help bring light to solutions.
Mike – Absolutely, there needs to be a long term plan attached to this. Our community and dg58 has better places to focus our creative energies than how fix a leaky roof.
This board should explain their reluctance to seek any state or federal grants. This is similar to the Cheever days when the village ignored available fed. funds through the Dupage Mayors Council. Yes, you do have to fill out some forms and keep a clean bidding process. Anyone hiding skeletons from the US Attorney by any chance ??
Clearly, financial planning is essential, but Craig Cook has an interesting post under the “D58 PTAs plan demonstration” thread from Dec. 8. For your convenience:
Your point that previous boards should have been saving for these capital expenditures sounds reasonable on its face. One would think that accumulating the funds over time to replace the roofs without borrowing would be ideal. However, there are several factors which act to sabotage this kind of sensible planning. The first barrier is the Illinois School Code, which mandates a limit on accumulating cash in an Operations and Maintenance fund (Section 17-5.1, Illinois School Code): “No tax for operations and maintenance purposes … as provided in Section 17-5 shall be levied at a rate sufficient to accumulate funds nor shall funds for such purposes be accumulated as authorized in said sections until the board of education or school board has by resolution ordered the submission of the proposition of accumulating funds for such purpose to the electors of the district at a regular scheduled election and the proposition has been approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon.” This effectively requires taxpayer approval for the school district to build savings for future roof replacement. So, ironically, the State allows districts to borrow and pass on interest costs to the taxpayers under the Life-Safety provisions without referendum, but requires a referendum to allow the school district to accumulate savings for the same purpose. Even if this referendum passed, one can predict the complaint of taxpayers as the reserves accumulated that the district is flush with cash, and therefore should reduce its next tax levy. “Spend the funds down, don’t take our money and sit on it” would be the plaint.
This may not be as easy as it looks…
After reading the except from the ISC at least but not limited to the accumulated total of five times, I found myself dizzy. I would go as far as asking the community to be able to save up to 1,000,000 per school + 500,000 for administrative buildings. This should give the district approx 14,000,000 in funds. This figure should adjust annual basis based on the CPI. This fund should have very specific wording on what it can and cannot be used for. I think that we could even get SOC’s support on such an item. Maybe I’m just living a dream.