Friday, March 10, 2006
Another Snow Job by Huntley District 158 School Board Majority
It’s spring. The snow has melted.
Yet, the majority of the Huntley School District 158 Board is trying to pull another snow job.
You’ll remember the first snow job. It was saying that a tax hike of 55 cents would be only a one-year hike…for 55 cents.
Instead, the narrowly passed referendum vote authorized an increase of $1.22 and, possibly, $1.58, which could be result in a maximum rate hike of 55 cents per year until that amount was reached.
Larry Snow blew the whistle on this chicanery. Then, he got elected to the school board.
The school board members resent both.
When Snow started looking at neighboring School District 300’s 55-cent referendum proposal this year, he found lots of discrepancies. He was bold enough to accept an invitation to speak to the Algonquin-Lake in the Hills Rotary Club. He listened to District 300 school finance person Cheryl Crates make the school’s “need” pitch one Wednesday morning and presented alternative information the next Wednesday.
Then, all six of his school board ”buddies” decided to rebuke him in a letter to the local papers. School Board President Mike Skala, joined by Frank Coleman, Shawn Green, Rosemary Herringer and Glen Stewart signed a letter asking those with complaints about Snow to call the school district’s number.
"We regret any damaging effects his comments may have on the staff, students and residents of District 300 and surrounding communities," the letter said.
Now, Pioneer Press has done a story on the letter.
"It wasn't meant to be criticism, at least on my behalf, but I believe some people in the community have viewed it as such," School Board President Skala told Pioneer Press.
What a crock!
Yet, the majority of the Huntley School District 158 Board is trying to pull another snow job.
You’ll remember the first snow job. It was saying that a tax hike of 55 cents would be only a one-year hike…for 55 cents.
Instead, the narrowly passed referendum vote authorized an increase of $1.22 and, possibly, $1.58, which could be result in a maximum rate hike of 55 cents per year until that amount was reached.
Larry Snow blew the whistle on this chicanery. Then, he got elected to the school board.
The school board members resent both.
When Snow started looking at neighboring School District 300’s 55-cent referendum proposal this year, he found lots of discrepancies. He was bold enough to accept an invitation to speak to the Algonquin-Lake in the Hills Rotary Club. He listened to District 300 school finance person Cheryl Crates make the school’s “need” pitch one Wednesday morning and presented alternative information the next Wednesday.Then, all six of his school board ”buddies” decided to rebuke him in a letter to the local papers. School Board President Mike Skala, joined by Frank Coleman, Shawn Green, Rosemary Herringer and Glen Stewart signed a letter asking those with complaints about Snow to call the school district’s number.
"We regret any damaging effects his comments may have on the staff, students and residents of District 300 and surrounding communities," the letter said.
Now, Pioneer Press has done a story on the letter.
"It wasn't meant to be criticism, at least on my behalf, but I believe some people in the community have viewed it as such," School Board President Skala told Pioneer Press.
What a crock!
Labels: Algonquin-Lake in the Hills Rotary Club, District 300, Frank Coleman, Glen Stewart, Huntley School District 158, Larry Snow, Mike Skala, Rosemary Herringer, Shawn Green
Comments:
<< Home
Thank you for the coverage on this matter. It needed to be addressed.
Snow did a financial analysis. (It's one of his many talents and interests.) He used the numbers provided by D300 AND the numbers it omitted.
Telling the truths found in that analysis isn't "damaging".
People on the D-158 board who are- intent on stifling the truth,
stifling new ideas,
and stifling attempts to make smart business decisions for our kids and residents/taxpayers - well, I would call THEIR attitudes and presence "damaging".
As to Skala's "spin" about the letter not being "criticism" and as to the letter's lofty wording suggesting they would never ever interfere with Freedom of Speech - "What a crock!" is an excellent observation. (It's also the polite version.)
All the "Smoke and Mirrors" in the world won't make that letter change from garbage into a rose. It's also a pretty sure bet that the "Pompous Posse" (as some call them) won't be making a public apology.
Having seen Skala and the rest in action before, during, and after D-158's tax bloated referendum campaign/election and during D-158's continuing financial/accounting "surprises", the only question I would have for them is whether they actually ARE clueless or they CHOOSE to be clueless.
Snow did a financial analysis. (It's one of his many talents and interests.) He used the numbers provided by D300 AND the numbers it omitted.
Telling the truths found in that analysis isn't "damaging".
People on the D-158 board who are- intent on stifling the truth,
stifling new ideas,
and stifling attempts to make smart business decisions for our kids and residents/taxpayers - well, I would call THEIR attitudes and presence "damaging".
As to Skala's "spin" about the letter not being "criticism" and as to the letter's lofty wording suggesting they would never ever interfere with Freedom of Speech - "What a crock!" is an excellent observation. (It's also the polite version.)
All the "Smoke and Mirrors" in the world won't make that letter change from garbage into a rose. It's also a pretty sure bet that the "Pompous Posse" (as some call them) won't be making a public apology.
Having seen Skala and the rest in action before, during, and after D-158's tax bloated referendum campaign/election and during D-158's continuing financial/accounting "surprises", the only question I would have for them is whether they actually ARE clueless or they CHOOSE to be clueless.
I was at the first anti-referendum meeting where Larry Snow gave his presentation. I talked with Larry in great detail after the meeting. I do have to admit that I do not recall him presenting himself in any way personally to the group as a District 158 School Board Member. There were others who made it clear that Larry was responsible for changes made in District 158, but at the meeting where I heard him speak, he did not make that representation.
In my opinion, there are valid points that Larry makes. However, there are also some very strong assumptions as well that as a D300 resident and parent of two children being educated within the district - I'm simply not willing to "bank on" and obviously our district isn't either. This isn't meant to bash Larry, but I do have to disagree on a few points.
There is a statement that I heard once at a training course, but I don't recall the author. It goes like this, "Before I begin any project there is only one thing that I know is 100% correct. Some of my assumptions are wrong."
Larry has accused the school board of being conservative in their calculations. In some cases based on the numbers I have seen, I have to agree that they have in some instances. But in all honesty, I appreciate the fact that they have taken that approach. I understand that approach and I applaud that approach. In fact, I would be very concerned if they did not use conservative values in their calculations and here is why.
I am more comfortable knowing that the referenda is configured to handle growth of 7,200 students. I am glad that if there is any pending legislation that might reduce or increase funding from the state that they used conservative calculations. I am comfortable knowing that the referenda will support the construction and expansion of school buildings. Regardless of what I think, it's the district's responsibility to use conservative numbers in their calculations and to do otherwise - simply wouldn't be responsible.
Let's face facts. No matter what the district proposes, the anti-referendum groups are going to find something to complain about. If the district wasn't conservative in their calculations, the anti-referendum groups would say 'they aren't asking for enough funding and programs will still be in jeopardy' and use that against them. Niether the D300 school board or Larry Snow has a crystal ball - we have to use assumptions and some of them have to be conservative in nature.
Here are the real facts. If the referenda are not passed on March 21st - programs in our district will be cut - that is a simple and automatic fact at this point. The district has a defined resolutions at the time the referenda configurations were proposed. The programs they detailed will be cut if the referenda are not passed.
At the anti-referendum meetings, presentors made statements that appear as facts about the referenda. They say things like "the programs will not be cut" and "don't worry...this to shall pass" and "the programs don't have to be cut." They present these statements as fact and it's simply not true. The fact is, the programs will be cut.
Here is an example of what will happen: The directors of the sports conference that we belong to have two plans based on whether our referenda fail or pass. One of those plans simply does not include D300 - we will be automatically dropped from the conference. Our kids and our district loses.
Here is another example of what will happen: There are teachers, one of which who is an excellent educator in the music program at Jacob's who was given a "pink slip" a few weeks ago. If the referenda are not passed - he will have no choice but to find another position in another district. Our kids and our district loses.
One of the things they don't tell you at the anit-referenda meetings is this: Although it would be an extreme measure, if our district doesn't resolve it's financial issues, there is a possibility that the state will step in and take over our district. Would you like to know one of the things they do to resolve a financial crisis in a district? They raise taxes and you don't get to cast a vote at all.
I'll end with this simple thought. I read an article about a meeting that took place in a community. Both sides disagreed on one very important issue. Many supported solutions to the problem and others opposed those solutions. All of them new the impact of what was bound to happen some day. The article I read was about the New Orleans levy and a meeting that took place a short time before the levy broke. Meeting after meeting, both sides thought they were doing the right thing and expressing their opinions as fact. The simple fact is, the levy broke and instead of spending a few million to fix the problem, it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to repair a disaster.
What do you believe it will cost our district if the referenda are not approved?
Please vote yes. It really is about money for education.
Dave Bishop
West Dundee
Post a Comment
In my opinion, there are valid points that Larry makes. However, there are also some very strong assumptions as well that as a D300 resident and parent of two children being educated within the district - I'm simply not willing to "bank on" and obviously our district isn't either. This isn't meant to bash Larry, but I do have to disagree on a few points.
There is a statement that I heard once at a training course, but I don't recall the author. It goes like this, "Before I begin any project there is only one thing that I know is 100% correct. Some of my assumptions are wrong."
Larry has accused the school board of being conservative in their calculations. In some cases based on the numbers I have seen, I have to agree that they have in some instances. But in all honesty, I appreciate the fact that they have taken that approach. I understand that approach and I applaud that approach. In fact, I would be very concerned if they did not use conservative values in their calculations and here is why.
I am more comfortable knowing that the referenda is configured to handle growth of 7,200 students. I am glad that if there is any pending legislation that might reduce or increase funding from the state that they used conservative calculations. I am comfortable knowing that the referenda will support the construction and expansion of school buildings. Regardless of what I think, it's the district's responsibility to use conservative numbers in their calculations and to do otherwise - simply wouldn't be responsible.
Let's face facts. No matter what the district proposes, the anti-referendum groups are going to find something to complain about. If the district wasn't conservative in their calculations, the anti-referendum groups would say 'they aren't asking for enough funding and programs will still be in jeopardy' and use that against them. Niether the D300 school board or Larry Snow has a crystal ball - we have to use assumptions and some of them have to be conservative in nature.
Here are the real facts. If the referenda are not passed on March 21st - programs in our district will be cut - that is a simple and automatic fact at this point. The district has a defined resolutions at the time the referenda configurations were proposed. The programs they detailed will be cut if the referenda are not passed.
At the anti-referendum meetings, presentors made statements that appear as facts about the referenda. They say things like "the programs will not be cut" and "don't worry...this to shall pass" and "the programs don't have to be cut." They present these statements as fact and it's simply not true. The fact is, the programs will be cut.
Here is an example of what will happen: The directors of the sports conference that we belong to have two plans based on whether our referenda fail or pass. One of those plans simply does not include D300 - we will be automatically dropped from the conference. Our kids and our district loses.
Here is another example of what will happen: There are teachers, one of which who is an excellent educator in the music program at Jacob's who was given a "pink slip" a few weeks ago. If the referenda are not passed - he will have no choice but to find another position in another district. Our kids and our district loses.
One of the things they don't tell you at the anit-referenda meetings is this: Although it would be an extreme measure, if our district doesn't resolve it's financial issues, there is a possibility that the state will step in and take over our district. Would you like to know one of the things they do to resolve a financial crisis in a district? They raise taxes and you don't get to cast a vote at all.
I'll end with this simple thought. I read an article about a meeting that took place in a community. Both sides disagreed on one very important issue. Many supported solutions to the problem and others opposed those solutions. All of them new the impact of what was bound to happen some day. The article I read was about the New Orleans levy and a meeting that took place a short time before the levy broke. Meeting after meeting, both sides thought they were doing the right thing and expressing their opinions as fact. The simple fact is, the levy broke and instead of spending a few million to fix the problem, it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to repair a disaster.
What do you believe it will cost our district if the referenda are not approved?
Please vote yes. It really is about money for education.
Dave Bishop
West Dundee
<< Home
