McHenry County Blog

8/28/6 - Some have suggested that they would like to take a look at the analysis of the Huntley School teachers’ union contract that was available to the board before Thursday’s early morning approval vote.

I have scanned them in and you can find what look like the most relevant three here. Click to enlarge the images to a size you can read.

Coincidentally, I received a phone call from Huntley school board member and negotiator Shawn Green, who is a policeman and told me he had now been on both sides of the bargaining table. Green, as you will remember is in the ruling faction that I have called the “Majority Five.”

He told me that there was “one-half percent of new money over 3 percent.”

(Perhaps someone can tease that explanation out of the numbers I have posted.)

“We’re going to stay within the 99% budget constraint, even with the contract,” Green told me.

I asked about the $1.3 million that might have to be taken out of the fund that pays teachers to be returned to the site and operations fund.

This was a subject of a good deal of discussion at last Tuesday night’s meeting about the scope of the forthcoming forensic audit.

“If that has to occur, we’re going to find out. We’re not going to go into deficit.”

I didn’t ask about how money would be squeezed out of such a tight budget to pay for the forensic audit.

Such an audit would probe

· what is believed to be misappropriated payroll funds,
· what Superintendent John Burkey referred to as “in lieu of” money that administrators with spouses on the school district payroll apparently received without proper authorization as extra compensation because their spouses themselves qualified for district health benefits,
· whether the $1.3 million transferred to the education fund from the site & operations fund has been returned, and
· whether the money spent in the site & construction fund actually paid for.

Green did reveal why the contract terms were not officially made public prior to their approval.

It’s “because part of the collective bargaining agreement. I’ve been through it on both sides.”

He said they started 1 PM Friday and it was “fluid until 5:15 that Saturday morning.”

When I told him I had looked at the documents presented the board and still couldn’t figure out what the contract really cost, he told me to “tell Burkey what you want,” which I shall eventually get around to doing.

I have in mind requesting a one-page document that will show what each element of the contract cost for the coming school year.

This would include, but not necessarily be limited to

-Increase in salary
-How many teachers receive money for, and how much more money will they receive for:

-Extra money to be paid to high school teachers for teaching a sixth class
-Extra money for general supervision time
-Extra money for lunchtime supervision
-Extra money for bus duty
-Extra money for supervising another teacher's class who is out sick or at a labor relations meeting.
-Salary increases due to additional credits, towards a masters degree for example
-Increases for scheduled extracurriculars
-Increases for bus duty
-Money paid to teachers taking time off to go to union meetings.
-Extra money collected out of teachers' paycheck for union dues
(what teachers pay this year and next they are going to want to be paid for in the next contract)
-Extra money because teachers no longer pay for 20% of dental insurance
-Extra cost because of teachers’ swtiching from the less expensive HMO to the PPO plan which will be almost 100% paid for by the District for single employees.
-Extra cost for employee, plus 1, healthcare option.

(If anyone can think of anything I have left out, please let me know.)

And, what is the value of two additional days that could be used for organized tutoring after school or something else considered valuable?

I'm also curious as to how the money "fell out of the sky" and suddenly became available for extra compensation for the high school teachers?

Was some line item padded? (If so, which one or ones?)

Green did provide some details about the high school teachers’ 6th class payments.

He said teachers who will receive them number in the “40’s,” that only 15% (maybe 25%, my notes seem to indicate both in separate places) of them will get it for more than one semester, that high school teachers only comprise one-sixth of all teachers and only one-half of them have this “teaching overload.”

He also pointed out that it will “not be a free-for-all where anyone can signup for the $4,500” that will be paid for teaching a sixth class next year ($6,750 the year after) and described the pay as “extra pay for extra work.”

With regard to the highest paid teachers only receiving a one-half of 1% raise the first year, he reminded me that the “teachers are the ones that wanted that.”

(Of course, it was a majority vote and certainly in such a rapidly growing district most teachers are not at the top of the pay scale.)

I inquired whether the board was setting itself up for “whipsawing,” meaning the elementary teachers would demand more money for teaching six classes.

“We want to get to the point where (all teachers) only have five periods. We don’t want them teaching six class (periods),” Green told me.

He described the dropping of the number of days of work from 185 to 183 as “a very touchy subject.”

Green said, “The district definitely won on that. The union wanted to get rid of five school improvement days (teacher institutes).

He pointed out that, while the School Code requires 174 days in school, “We’re staying at 180.

“It’s not costing the district any money,” Green observed of the cut in number of days the teachers will be required to work.

He must have thought I might wonder why he would call me, because he referred to the “spokesman for the board” (resolution).

“John (Burkey) and Mike (Skala) asked me to make the call.

“We don’t see that people aren’t allowed to speak their minds. We just want it to be done in an ethical manner.”

= = = = =
The picture of the Huntley School Board door reflects the sunset on the night that they appointed Tony Quagliano to the school board seat left vacant when the Majority Five appointed number six, Glen Stewart to his $101,000 job as Chief Operating Officer of the school district. I admit it would be more approprate if it had a reflection of a rainbow, but this is all I had.