O’Connell abstains from latest bond vote
D58 has added a “Roof FAQ” page to its Web site where residents can get answers to a variety of questions about the district’s roof replacement projects and planned Life Safety bond issuance.
Among the 11 questions answered are “What exactly is the plan for the $10 million Life Safety bond issuance?” and “Why not use the district’s cumulative fund balances to pay for this work?”
On Jan. 11, six members of the D58 board again voted in favor of issuing the bonds, with member Scott O’Connell abstaining. The issue of up to $13 million in bonds was approved, which includes $2.8 million in advance refunding of 2001 bonds.
The board also approved Ice Miller LLP as bond counsel, replacing Chapman & Cutler, which was the board’s bond counsel for its two earlier attempts to issue the bonds. Those were thwarted by O’Connell’s threat of litigation. The Ice Miller contract, at $40,000 is $34,200 higher than the previous fees contracted by Chapman & Cutler.
The price is higher than the firm’s original bid of $15,000 due to the threat of litigation, said member John Cooper.
Before voting on the motion, the board spent several minutes discussing whether to allow O’Connell to reopen discussion on the issue.
“He’s not playing by the rules,” said member Steve Funk, referring to O’Connell’s failure to respond board president Elizabeth Davis’s requests that he share information, as required by board policy.
“I feel it’s very disrespectful,” Funk said.
With the board’s approval, O’Connell again attempted to make his case for using the district’s working cash fund to finance three upcoming roof replacements — something he said the district has done before. He also suggested the district’s $3.9 million medical insurance reserve fund could be tapped for that purpose.
“I believe that, given our future finance concerns, this $10 million bond issue is not to provide money for roofs — because we have it — but to paper over future budget deficits with debt,” O’Connell said. “And I strongly urge not to fund operations with debt.”
Referencing a 2007 report by Controller Jim Popernik, O’Connell said: “If we can’t explain or justify a bond issue, I don’t see how we can justify simply taking it without asking the voters.
“If we want to issue bonds for this project, I strongly suggest we ask the voters and give them reasonable estimates and identify specifically which projects it will be used for.”
Member Gary Lester said the board and its Financial Advisory Committee had repeatedly analyzed the issue in the two years since Popernik wrote his report.
“This has been a very well-thought-out process,” he said. “From my perspective this board understands very clearly the issues. The board realizes we have to move ahead.”
Other board members criticize O’Connell’s suggested use of reserve funds. “The state of Illinois is in the disaster it is because they raided every reserve fund they could,” said member John Miller.
As the board discussed the current resolution to issue bonds, O’Connell asked whether or when Chapman & Cutler knew that the completed roof work had come in less than estimated. The board in 2009 paid for two roof replacements out of its working cash fund with the intention of replenishing the account with bond proceeds.
“We’ve kept them updated,” responded Supt. Paul C. Zaander.
O’Connell also questioned wheather Ice Miller had that information and if Popernik and Rick Bubula, director of buildings and grounds, were “comfortable” with estimates provided by architects.
Saying the board is looking to issue $3.45 million in bonds for $2.2 million worth of projects, O’Connell said, “I can’t justify, I can’t approve something like that.
“I believe we’re borrowing more than we have the authority to borrow and I have serious concerns because I think that is potentially fraudulent,” he said.
Davis respond that this is “the same resolution we attempted before, the same resolution the judge signed off on, and the same resolution that the ISBE superintendent said was fine.
“Thank you for your input,” she said. “Does anyone else have any discussion?”
O’Connell retorted that “the judge did not sign off on these estimates because no one told him about it.”
“I can’t even vote on this because I want nothing to do with this because I don’t think it’s going to hold up to scrutiny,” O’Connell said.
With that Davis called for the vote.
Hopefully we can put this issue behind us now. Like it or not, it is time to move on.
Agreed.
I’ve made my opinion clear on this already on my blog.
If O’Connell decides to block this again, then I think the district should consider seeking an attorney outside of bond counsel.
Regarding Scott O’Connell’s suggestion to tap into a multimillion dollar medical insurance fund: in a word “uncaring”. That idea defines how little regard he has for other people’s children in district 58. Since his children attend parochial school outside the district , it is my understanding that his family would never see the benefits of that particular fund. Mr. O’Connell hides behind his current righteous excuses but those that pay attention, can see that ,at the expense of taxpayers, he only gets in the way of progress.
When someone does not have the interest of a productive education system , then they should volunteer their time on the board of something else. However it is hard to see Scott being elected or appointed in Downers Grove. Other elected officials have come under fire for voting ‘present’, which is to say they are not doing the job they were elected to do. Is there any reason D58 needs someone on the board to abstain and not face the decisions they are asked to? It’s a simple vote-either yes or no. To refuse to answer the question only solidifies my impression that , not only is Scott O’Connell unfit for the board position, but also is not able to share his true intentions in front of those who care about D58.
Then Mr. Phifer why don’t only people who have children in the schools pay the taxes, it is only when we compell others to pay that these types of disagreements surface. Maybe Scott O’c is unfit to even live in the same town as such an advanced soul such as yourself, maybe we can collectively buy his home through eminent domain if necessary and remove him from our fine town!
With all due respect to the late Lloyd Bentsen, you sir are no Mr. McMurphy (your first name is spelled R-A-N-D-L-E, not Randall). Mr. McMurphy could tell when a situation is crazy, you clearly can not.
Well this “medical reserve” fund of almost $4 million is a new one. Is this included in the newspaper legal notice D58 prints with annual fund balances ??
John – Though I’m not one to defend SOC’s actions, I don’t think its fair to say that he does not benefit from the quality of our public schools. Also, I think that it is unfair to bring his educational choice for his kids. First off, what drove SOC to run for the BoE in the first place was the ridiculous 31% levy which was asked for 3+ years ago and brought the district under extreme scrutiny (and rightfully so). His platform was on fiscal transparency and the voters spoke. Then to a fault, he has defended his stance against the bond sale and working cash fund. Secondly if you look at SoC voting record, he hasn’t voted against anything that has been about improving the curriculum and quality of educational resources. Third, he does benefit from the district. The quality of the schools in DG58 act as part of the framework of building our community and making it great by giving appeal to Downers Grove and making us a strong environment for business growth and safe living.
This is where my defense SOC, part ways. SOC has made a conscious choice to be be a cancer to the district. His “I stand by my principles” attitude has cost the district 10′s of thousand of dollars. SOC has always brought a unique perspective on the district finances but his brash and gotchta tactics has made any good feedback he gives fall on deaf ears. SOC’s lack of willingness to work towards legitimate solutions for financial issues further embeds status quo into the system and all anyone hears when he talks is blah blah blah blah blah blah. Ultimately, he has fostered an environment of distrust and blame instead of encouraging openness and collaboration.
“it is only when we compell others to pay that these types of disagreements surface”
Mr. McMurphy, help me understand… are you suggesting that requiring all residents to pay taxes for public schools is the problem? That the school district or, perhaps, District 58 parents, are compelling “others” to pay? Then your ire is misdirected; talk to Thomas Jefferson, who believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people regardless of their status in society.
If your concern—or that of Mr. O’Connell—is limited to paying to educate someone else’s children, the life-safety bond issue is an ineffective place to start. This issue has been researched and reviewed for two years by taxpaying finance-savvy residents of Downers Grove. A single $10 million bond was identified as the most efficient means to pay for roof repairs and other life-safety repairs needed throughout the district.
We are not talking about fleecing Downers Grove residents to use requested funds for non-life-safety repairs. The $10 million will repay a fund used to pay for new school roofs last summer; new roofs for three additional schools ASAP; and a laundry list of life-safety repairs necessary in the next two to three years. Among those repairs is asbestos abatement—we’re not talking wasteful expenditures. And despite the estimate for the next round of roof repairs coming in under budget, there is still no lack of life-safety repairs that need to be addressed.
The school board and the financial advisory committee also have clarified that this bond WILL NOT RAISE TAXES. This bond will replace another fund that will be paid off, keeping taxes stable. I can’t say the same for the approximately $60,000 (so far) Mr. O’Connell’s threats have cost Downers Grove residents.
As I personally told Mr. O’Connell, don’t underestimate District 58 parents: we pay taxes with our hard-earned money, and we don’t want to see those dollars squandered. We don’t expect a blank check to educate our children, and many of us invest our time and money in our children’s classrooms to make up for deficits.
So, by all means, be wary of the way our tax dollars are spent, but focus your energies somewhere else, and let the board do its job and move forward with bond issuance.
Go Chief Bromden! You called him out! I think anyone in DG welcomes ANYONE to volunteer their time for our public school board. But when you don’t follow the rules of conduct (#3 and #5 specifically), you are not looking out for the best interests of the children. Oh, that’s right, this is about taxpayers not children. Well, he isn’t looking out for the taxpayers either because without safe schools our home values go down. So, as far as I see it OCO is messing with the value of my home, and he’s managed to wrack up, already this fiscal year and we’re only half over, $60,000 in legal fees. Before he was on the board, that number was about $35,000. So, how is that siding with the taxpayer? He doesn’t follow the rules of conduct, he’s wracking up legal fees while he has his tantrums and when those don’t work, he just bullies. I wonder what the people who are renting across the street starting March 1st will think of the buckets and cones in the hallways of the nearest school. They chose DG to rent for now to see if this is where they want to be after leaving the city with their two young children. What do you think they will feel when they walk into the school and see that the ceiling tiles are pulled out and buckets with a foot of brown water in them? They will choose another town to plant themselves, and I don’t blame them.