On the day when the front page of the Sun Times runs a story about CPS officials wasting $800,000 of our tax dollars (of course, "for the children"), I read here about a local school board candidate being denied the opportunity to run for election because her papers were not in a binder. I have no idea about her qualifications or suitability it just seems bizarre. I am sick of this system top to bottom. I have read here about the struggle of our local school district, but, you know, I am realizing that this district is in trouble because it functions within a corrupt, unimaginative and broken system, not because local taxpayers are stingy or heartless.

I don't agree with everything Ms. Hughs has said and some of her tactics but I think the people of Lemont are capable and should make this decision on election day. It seems like we always have a few people that know what's best for us and they do things like this. If she was a convicted felon I would have to agree but I have been known on occasion to have some unbinded or messy paperwork at my workplace but my job is always done and done well. If this is all you can do to stop her from running it sure makes it sound like there is something to hide. I'm sure there will be a law suit involved in this and cost the district thousands of dollars that they don't have. What a petty shame.

As I've commented across the state, the role of School Districts and school boards is to provide the appearance of "local control." In fact, districts are mere engines of spending and waste, as they DISTANCE the local citizens from the process of oversight.

In this instance, the board is using Illinois' arcane, and purposefully complex election laws to take away the citizens right to vet and elect a broad range of choices. (They tried this two years ago, and were spanked by a Federal Judge.) As the election cycle heats up, ask yourself these questions.

1. What was the district doing using their attorney to prosecute supposedly "independent" objectors?

2. Given the exhibitions of seething hatred for Janet Hughes during board meetings, how could it be that anyone connected with the board could possibly sit in judgement of her petitions?

3. Why do so many seemingly decent citizens blindly support "the district" and its policies, up to the point of mercilessly and viciously attacking anyone who even questions the dictates of a system run from Springfield by a mostly oily class of Superintendents?

If you want even a tiny shot at local control, get rid of the "business-as-usual" board candidates and elect a slate of people who take their orders from the voters, not the Administrative class that executes a school code written by and for unions, associations of administrators, and debt churning bond dealers.

Let me answer Bruno's questions:
1. The District's attorney must have found a little extra time from defending against Janet's frivolus lawsuit to attend last nights meeting. Kidding aside, I believe that he legally had to be involved in this matter. The citizens who raised the objections had every right to have their claim addressed, and an independent Cook County election official made the vote to honor their objections unanimous.
2. The members of the board who aren't running for election are required to sit in judgement by statute. Make no mistake, the seething hatred for Janet that you are refering to extends far beyond the board.
3. The citizens don't blindly support the "district" and it's policies. The last two referendums serve as evidence of that. I know plenty of citizens that are unhappy with the Superintendent and the District, but they are more unhappy with the circus that has been created by Janet and her supporters. Janet has mercilessly attacked other people from the first day she came on the scene and now she is the poor victim. Boo Hoo.

If you want to change the way things are done, you need to change the laws. That means we need to change our state government which is where all these rules originate from. Repeatedly breaking the rules and then whining about it afterward is not going to accomplish anything.

This sounds like shady politics that I'd only expect to see in City government, but it appears it has permeated the far suburbs. Using legal loop holes to remove a candidate from the ballot not for invalid signatures, a criminal background, or something else of some sustenance, but because it wasn't paper clipped together. I'm not the biggest Janet Hughes fan, but I'm not a fan of petty tactics. Let voters decide if she belongs there, board members are supposed to work for us, not some elite. I think the opposition should focus more on what they can do to improve our school district and community rather than how they can oust political opposition.

WE are a system that relies on RULES. If I were a candidate I would go to great lengths to see that my filings were according to regulations, to the enth degree, so as to keep an objection from being filed. Attention to detail! As for this seeming petty...the rule must have some basis. I can only guess the required "booking" of the paperwork might well be to preempt tampering with the packet in the first place once it is submitted. For Janet, who has blasted others for not following estabilshed proccedure, to miss the detail here says something. It is time to get the detail on the mis-steps, if any, of the district...make the info public and MOVE FORWARD!

Citizens of this town raised the objections. All the board did was to read the rules and vote on whether or not the rule was violated. The rule was violated, and they voted accordingly.

If the board made an incorrect interpretation of the rule or voted in violation of the rule, you would have a point about the board. The fact is that they followed the rule. If you think the rule is stupid, then try to change the rule. Simply blaming or changing the official accomplishes nothing.

I would think that with all the nonsense video taping and harrassing that has been coming from Janet and her supporters, she would have made sure she did not violate the rules. What goes around comes around.

Denying some one from getting on a ballot for not having a paper clip is machine type politics that I thought was used a little northeast of here. I think the people of Lemont are responsible enough to make a decision on election day without the help of a few people that seemingly know what's right for us. Anybody that would use such tactics better be ready to open themselves up to the same scrutiny. I don't agree with everything Ms. Hughes brings to the table but I think the people should be allowed to make the decision and she should be allowed on the ballot. These are sad times in Lemont when a once healthy school district is falling apart and we're arguing about paper clips. When all is said and done I hope the current board has all their paper clips in the proper place.

Sigh. Let's flip it around. Let's say one of the other school board candidates running against Janet failed to follow the clearly stated rules. Does anyone believe that Janet and her supporters would not have held their opposition to the same standards? They would have probably filed a lawsuit to eliminate one of their opponents. I stand corrected. They have already filed a lawsuit to eliminate their opponents.

The sad times in Lemont District 113A started long before this incident. Janet and her supporters will nitpick, litigate and enforce rules on everyone except themselves. This is the environment that they have created with all their harrassment, litigation, intimidation, video taping, and personal attacks.

Personally, I would not have raised the objection. I think she would have lost anyway. That said. The citizens who objected have every right to do so regardless of motive, and the board has no other option than to issue a judgement based on the existing law which is what they did.

I am calling for a forensic audit of all the paperclips in Lemont. If we know how many paperclips existed in the town before the petitions were filed, and we count how many we currently have. We could subtract the paperclips from the correctly submitted petitions and determine whether or not there was a missing paperclip.

William Douglas wrote:

If you want to change the way things are done, you need to change the laws. That means we need to change our state government which is where all these rules originate from.

My response: Exactly. We need a new school code that dramatically limits unwarranted spending increases, opaque budgeting, and the accountability shell game. Where we differ is in the dis-ingenuousness of those who blame the state law while hiding behind its curtain of complexity.

While we wait for people to emerge to end this state's awful tax and education code (written by the special interest who profit from it), the very least we can do is elect watchdogs, not lapdogs, to the boards.

Next up, the election laws are what they are, and if one doesn't abide by their intentionally debilitating intricacies, this is often the outcome. That said, it is heartening to see that many of the comments here reflect what every one knows - that ballot challenges are most often proxies for parties with an agenda - and this one certainly qualifies.

Lastly, the citizens of Lemont should call for audit the last few years of the working cash account, not paper clips.

I always find Mr Behrend comments enlightening, sage and piercing. Perhaps he supports the notion of public education, perhaps not. For the record, I do. But if all those who support the cause of truly educating our (your) young children would stop seeing his ideas as opposed to their own we could finally make progress. God knows we need it. Lemmings, start breathing some fresh air. You live in a wealthy district where your kids are underserved and, possibly, underperforming. Put the money aside for a minute, does anyone out there have a good idea on how to progress.

The small size of the paperclip does not make it insignificant, just as DNA evidence, while small, could mean the difference between guilt or innocence in a murder trial. There is also a relative aspect to this. Perhaps one paperclip would not be significant out of 10 million in the back of a semi tractor, but when the stack of papers is small, and how they are presented is very important to the people charged with determining their meaning in the election process, the paperclip becomes very important. Obviously the Crafters of Illinois Election Code 10-4 thought enough of it to include it.

A "paper clip issue" in District 229 was resolved with the candidate staying on the ballot, I believe. The same will happen here on appeal but, again the politics of 113A leaves a town commoner wanting a bath. Is anyone helping Johnny with his homework?

Martin,
I would like to point out that the Oak Lawn paper clip issue questioned whether a candidate's use of a paper clip to fasten his petition was acceptable. They were not accusing him of submitting "unbound" papers, as was the case with Mrs. Hughes. I'm pointing this out not because I agree with the decision, but because it's a fact.
Kory Atkinson, the attorney representing Hughes in the hearing, referenced a similar case from 2003 where the candidate's use of a paper clip was questioned. In District 113A, Hughes was accused of submitting her petition without a paper clip, binder or any other type of fastener. I cannot say whether this is true, but the electoral board did not find sufficient evidence that she DID use a paper clip, which is what she claimed. It will ultimately be up to the Cook County Circuit Court to decide, if Hughes chooses to appeal.

Again, I just wanted to clarify the facts for readers. I only provided a link to the Oak Lawn hearing because I thought it was ironic that there were two separate school district hearings regarding paper clips last night.

Respectfully,
Amanda Luevano
Editor, Lemont Patch

Mr. Finn be careful, you just publicly accused Sandy Larek of tampering with an election application. You need to retract the statement or back it up. You forgot to mention the two reporters who were present. From what I've read nobody can remember a paper clip and yet you accuse Mrs. Larek of pulling a slight of hand magic trick making the clip disappear before their very eyes.

I think the entire board should be removed. It's obvious that they cannot work together. Our schools and our children are suffering. They found a loophole in the "binding" incident because they wanted to. They were looking for an excuse. Whether the docs were bound or not, they were looking for a reason. I wish they spent that much time trying to figure out how to improve things in the District. They all need to go!

I moved to Lemont because of the schools and because it seemed that the community stuck together, looked out for each other, and because the community valued education. Now I'm stuck here reading about the law and paper clips! I'm disgusted by the entire issue. I wish the State would takeover.

First of all I don’t know Mrs. Hughes or any of the 113A board. I don’t agree with what she does or how she does it. I don’t agree with the board hiring Mr. Ricker based on past performance or approving some of the travel expenses just to name a few. They should have done the right thing and declined to pay.
However, more importantly the eye for an eye attitude that seems to be prevalent over the 113A issues, isn't doing anything to move voters to say YES to a referendum. Isn’t that the real objective? Most of what I hear is when the entire board is replaced people will consider saying YES, but not until then.
Instead of focusing on what is most important, they are fighting over a paperclip. Based on comments about Janet, posted on 12/27 which I agree with I would hoped for better.
1. “The law suit is a political stunt by the plaintiffs to draw attention to their efforts to get elected to the SD113A BOE. Look at what they did wrong, we're the good guys.
Unfortunately, seems folks have taken the same low road as Mrs. Hughes.
2.“The facts remain, none of the money is missing, none of it was used for personal gain, and though there were some procedural booking entry errors, the money has all been used in the spirit for which it was intended.”
Honestly the missing paperclip is much less of a concern.
I agree with others. They should have let it go and let the voters decide. Instead the eye for an eye attitude won once again. Very disappointing.

This debacle just piles onto the already huge heap of evidence that government and public sector unions destroy the education of our children, and our future. How much time has been spent by all stakeholders objecting, discussing, fretting, posting, etc. about a paperclip vs. how much time has been spent discussing and fretting about what children are taught and what they know when they leave D-113A or any school system? Why do the General Assembly and the Illinois Education Association support so many "laws" that serve a multitude of adult constituencies before we finally get to the customers, i.e. the parents and students? Why do they hate children?

If we can generate enough lawsuits and appeals, maybe all the public education money can finally get into the attorney's hands, the district and taxpayers will all be broke, and we can start building a strong and free system of education from scratch. The existing system has proven it's utterly incapable of reforming itself.

And why are people so scared to have Ms. Hughes on the ballot that they want her thrown off over an allegedly missing paperclip?

The objections were not raised by members of the board, and I am sure that those who had to rule on the objections are politically savvy enough to understand that this would seem like a case of sour grapes, and therefore exacerbate an already bad situation. The paperclip does mean something to me, though. I think of all the years that I have filed my taxes. There is that spot on the form where you staple your W-2s and other documents. As I attach the supporting documents, I take great care to make sure the staple goes all the way through, and that the documents are all attached between the lines. Then I turn the form on it's side and I check each of the documents to make sure that the staple went through it and that it will all stay on. If there are a lot of documents, I add a second staple just to be sure. Who cares? Well, I do. It's my responsibility as a citizen to pay my taxes, and I want to make sure that they get to the IRS office correctly, and with their supporting documents. It is a small thing, but it is not insignificant insofar as it shows a level of care and concern commensurate with its importance. I don't know what Mrs. Hughes was thinking when she submitted her petition, and I wouldn't claim to, but consider your own actions when something is important to you and you can make your own determination.  

Just a reminder to commenters/all Patch users: You MUST register with your real name. Anyone currently using a first name only or a nickname must change their user name.

Please adhere to our terms of use.

Thanks,
Amanda Luevano
Editor, Lemont Patch

Mike,
So, your position is that the board should ignore the rules and also ignore the rights if the 2 citizens who filed a valid objection to Janet's petition because of what you believe makes the situation better.
I just want so clarity your position. Rules only matter and people's rights only matter when they are deemed to be what's best for everyone. The next question will be who determines what's best for everyone.

Mr. Douglass, your effort to interrupt my position is a bit off base. However, I’m sure when folks read our post they make decision's on our position one way or the other which often is not totally correct. So be it.
It would be a breath of fresh air for the entire school board to be focused on the significant problems we face. The witch hunting for both sides is a beyond ridiculous and highly unproductive. Let’s focus on the job at hand and not worry about a paperclip or the procedural booking entry errors. I truly believe the elections in April will correct some of the problems. Unfortunately, we will have to wait far to long to correct the other problems. If you want to talk give me a call at 708 903 9100.

Many people have missed the fact that the burden of proof was on the objectors, and Mr. Chialdikas and Mrs. Albrecht failed to prove their case. They had to prove that Mrs. Hughes did NOT have her papers paperclipped when she handed them to Mrs. Larek. Both Hughes and candidate Aurelio testified under oath that the papers were clipped; Mrs. Larek said no, even though she could not recall other minutiae of the day's events. I'd have to say that's 2-against-1, and any impartial Board would have dismissed the objections, citing that sworn testimony and the case law presented by Atty. Atkinson. Instead, they went to great pains to ignore the case law precedent, were crudely disdainful in tone and manner toward Hughes and Aurelio, and misrepresented Mr. Aurelio's honest uncertainty even after he stated (check the record), "If I had to choose between yes or no, I'd say YES [there was a paper clip]." So, the Board -- defendants in a lawsuit that the Open Government group agreed to litigate -- refused to recuse themselves to remove any taint of bias, and then accepted the word of a clerk who has filed complaints against Hughes and may be seeking retribution. If you were there Tuesday night, and still believe that's an OK way to get what you want -- an orchestrated political hit job -- I guess you believe the end justifies the means. I think it was shameful, embarrassing for the town, conspiratorial, and, ironically, may doom the re-election chances of the Board incumbents.

There appears to be a discrepancy in Mrs. Larek's testimony.
In a separate, excellent story on this site, reporter Amanda Luevano provides a summary of what she witnessed (and didn't) at the time the petitions were filed. She writes, "While I was there, school board candidate Laura Reigle asked to come into the office to review the six petitions that were filed that day. However, since it was technically after business hours, Larek denied her request."
I believe the transcript of Tuesday's hearing will show that Mrs. Larek was asked whether she denied anyone admittance to the room where petitions were submitted. She stated that she did not. Ms. Luevano's account appears to contracdict Mrs. Larek's testimony.

Susan,
I would just like to note that what I meant when I said "Larek denied her request" was that Larek told Reigle she wouldn't be able to review petitions until Monday during regular business hours. I don't believe she denied her request to come into the office. Laura Reigle was standing in the office when she asked Sandie about the petitions. Based on what I saw and understood to be happening, the only denial was for Reigle to review the petitions.

Just wanted to clarify what I meant, in case there was any confusion.

Thanks,
Amanda

Ok, thanks for the clarification!

Correction....Mrs. Larek denied access to Mrs. Hughes companion because access was allowed for candidates only...

Vince, you're correct on that point.
Not enough was made of the fact that Janet's petitions WERE in a folder when the objectors arrived a week later to inspect them, and that anything could have happened in the interim to the paperclip she says was in place when she submitted her forms. The wholesale dismissal of her claims, the testimony of Mr. Aurelio, and case law precedent sure made it look like the outcome had been decided as soon as Mr. Chialdikas and Mrs. Albrecht filed their objections.
It was all a charade, with Hughes' outster pre-determined. Like any citizen candidate, she deserved a fair and impartial hearing, and respect from the elected officials who are supposed to serve the public, and that she did not get.
Have we all forgotten that differences of opinion exist and can be debated without resorting to the character assasinations and pure viciousness that was on display Tuesday night? Are people so lacking confidence in their facts and positions that they have to employ ad hominem arguments, strawman issues, and slander? Or do they have reason to deflect attention away from their motives and actions?
At the end of the day, I'll paraphrase the pertinent question for me, with apologies to Bruno Behrend:
Why do so many seemingly decent citizens blindly support "the district" and its policies, up to the point of mercilessly and viciously attacking anyone who even questions the dictates of [the] system...?

Stop already with the "paper clip" argument! The election law uses the word BIND. It clearly uses it in several places as "bind this document to etc" or "do not bind". I looked up the word BIND and there are numerous definations...none of which seem to qualify a paper clip or even a staple for that matter. To be more thorough in a search I looked up places that sell "Binding Equipment" and found none of them sell staples or paper clips, of any size or variety, for that purpose. The law likely reads "BIND" so no one can remove pages of signatures and spoil a nominating petition once submitted. Maybe NONE of them were submitted correctly! Cheeez!

Amanda, There was a previous comment on here by Bruno Behrend stating that some comments were deleted. I now noticed that all of his postings along with some others, have been deleted. These comments did not seem inappropriate to me & I am now just curious as to why they are now no longer in this thread?

Paperclips, law suit ...why isn't anyone concerned with educating our kids?

Susan, I take exception to your assertion that arguments against Mrs. Hughes are ad hominem. I have nothing against Mrs. Hughes personally. I am very upset by what has occurred in the school district over the last year, however.
Paperclips and all aside, there is one thing in my mind that is perfectly clear. I would like to see a school board composed of members who might not always agree, but who can work together constructively to solve the district’s problems. I would like these people to be careful and responsible with this public trust and to make their decisions based on logic and reason, not accusation and innuendo. I would like them to have a caring heart for the children and a respectful attitude toward the teachers who do so much, but often get so little in return.

The whole public school system has no caring heart for children. Maybe some people who inhabit the system actually care. But the *system* is designed to serve every adult consituency under the sun before it serves students.

EVH I agree with you, where is the concern about educating children? Saying the community is misinformed and isn't giving enough money to schools is insulting to whoever the comment is directed at. Like most other districts, Lemont is an excellent example of why government should have *NO* involvement in educating our children.

I won't worry about responses to this. With Patch's comment policy, I'm sure this posting will be bullied out of existence by the time I wake up tomorrow.

BTW, I'm curious. With so many candidates running, what are you Hughes-haters so worried about that you'd stage a 2 hour kangaroo court over a paperclip, when district finances are in the tank and many D-113A -> private school students require remediation?

The big picture is that Janet was a whistle blower. We have yet to have accountability for the misuse of funds.

With so many candidates running, what are you Hughes-haters so worried about that you'd stage a 2 hour kangaroo court over a paperclip, when district finances are in the tank and many D-113A -> private school students require remediation?

Mr. Andrysiak, case law cited at the hearing accepted the use of a paper clip; you may have a different personal standard for and understanding of "bind," but the courts (of law, not public opinion) trump you.
For all the well-meaning folks who insist that the district is underfunded, I invite you to broaden your research on the topic. Check out a Cato Institute Policy Analysis published in March 2010 for a sober look at education spending that challenges many standard assumptions. "They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools," by Adam Schaeffer, reports that "the amount we spend on education has increased dramatically and consistently over the past century, with a 25% increase in per-pupil expenditures, in constant dollars, between 1995 and 2005." The paper goes on to report that the actual amount spent in districts is consistently under-reported. For me, this means we need to get a grip on what we actually spend, and perhaps look at it in the context of what we are getting for the money we're spending. Simply insisting that the district's problems -- including inferior education results -- will be solved with a tax increase ignores the fact that in spite of increasing expenditures, education performance has lagged. Lessons from the private sector teach that you can't always reverse failure by throwing more money at it; you often have to change your assumptions, your methods, your personnel, and, yes, your budget, and weigh all that against expected outcomes.

Susan-
I just wanted to let you know that I did download the paper by Adam Schaefer, and I started to read it. There were some points that I did find compelling. I do not know if it will change my opinion on the current situation in this school district, but you have my sincere promise that I will read every word of it and factor that into my analysis of the situation.

I continue to read these comments on the 113a articles. No matter what the article is, the debate always turns into comments for or against increased funding for the district. Instead of continueing this debate within different articles and reading differing OPINIONS, I figured I would put a question on the Q/A section of the website asking "Does the district need more funding?". That way we can leave the forum comments to discuss the article at hand.

Susan A. asked "Is it presumptuous of me to then to know you feel any school system spending less, is in fact, "underfunded"?"

First off, I believe that any state that funds children unequally is violating the US and State's equal protection clause IMO. The idea that a child's education is a function of their zip code is immoral.

Since it is the state that has constitutional authority to educate, the money should a) come from the state, and b) follow the child, and not some arbitrary boundary. Further, we should have 10s, if not 100s, of independent education options. What we have across the nation is nothing short of educational apartheid, and if you support the district system that is what you are supporting.

So, how much funding is enough? We'll never know in this structure. Chicago spends over $12,000/kid and runs drop out factories, and a district just outside of Peoria spends under $6,000 and has better results.

According to NUI's (incomprehensible) report card, 113A spends about $26,000,000 on about 2600 students, with about 40% going to "other/operating." Do you not see something very wrong with that picture. It isn't an education system, it's a spending engine. The fact that it splits communities and pits neighbor against neighbor is merely another reason to dump it.

I'd rather give you 15 kids and $150,000, and let you do your job. I know that is over-simplified, but the current system is too complex, and must be dismantled.

Okay, for the sake of argument, maybe the entire system needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch. Do we tell the children to wait until we figure out how to do that (and procure the funds to do it) and then proceed with their education. It would be great to have that luxury, but it isn't realistic.
Also, there is a real cost to what we have allowed to happen with all the teachers that have already been let go. These a real people, with families of their own. I would assume most of them went into teaching because they really like to teach. I was amazed at how well some of them went beyond the classroom to enhance my children's education.
It is very difficult to visualize and grasp the absence of these people, and their impact on the students. I would like to see a list of them published so that people can understand what we have already lost.

Great points Mr. Hackiewicz. I knew many of the staff members that we lost. I partnered with other parents and administrators to offer free "outplacement services," a luxury that private sector staff receive when they get Reduced in Force (RIFed) but which public sector employees have no right to receive. I sat across from them and helped them with their resumes. I referred them to other helpful parents who volunteered their free time to do the same. I saw the tears in their eyes as they tried unsuccessfully to view the failed referendum impartially - for 70 district staff members, it was the most personal event of 2010. And through it all I wondered - where are the people who sparked this disaster with their antics and frivolous FOIA requests? They say they care...really? Abut what exactly? People? Or just whether an accounting practice was executed properly?

Our loss was the gain of many other communities who chose to hire our excellent ex-staff members. With the road we are on, I fear we will lose more and it greatly saddens me.

I don't love everything about the public school system, it has its flaws. But I do love Lemont. I love its students and its teachers. I do not want to see us continue down the road to ruin while we wait for radical restructuing of the system. I just want my community to offer the best possible education given the current situation. And I want to stop having to fight to get it.

With all due respect, the FOIA's did not bankrupt the system. The only way for us to access information of what has been going on within the walls of the administration was through due diligence of FOIAs. Like it or not, the public wouldn't know half of what was really going on unless we asked. Let's also not forget to mention the $80--$100k spent to try and overturn the election results a couple years ago. Where was the outcry for that money spent? I, for one, can't wait to see the outcome of the lawsuit. Somebody will have egg on their face. Who knows, maybe we can recoup all the working cash (and then some) back to the district that was mismanaged over the years? I have a hard time believing creative accounting errors caused millions to be depleted. Let's also see how the state will pass their income tax bill designed to increase funding to education. (WOW, more money for 113a) And don't forget , our property taxes will be reassessed again in August. I am for putting teachers back in the classrooms, but for you parents wanting free extracurricular activities, pay for it yourself . I had to. Set up a trust fund for families who need financial assistance for their children. I've seen way too many people shed tears over lost jobs too, and not all private sector employees receive outplacement. That is a luxury for many, not a given as implied above.

Once and for all - THE PLANTIFFS DID NOT CREATE THE FINANCIAL MESS! So what, they are running for the board. Good for them. And if anyone has been to the meetings the last year and a half (or more) they would KNOW that many many people have spoken up at the public comments offering concrete suggestions to consider. And often, they asked for the resignation of Ricker and the board. What I am deeply sick of is the policitical, lobbyist Citizens Group all cozy with the board and Ricker (anyone see them at Mrs. Hughes' hearing?). They complain and complain, but the only solution those people offer are a tax increase. Haven't they even listened to anyone else? So instead of funneling PTO money to them, I will put my money with the reformers who have stuck their neck on the line in filing this lawsuit. Do you honestly think the Chicago Kent Law school would take this one if there weren't facts to back it up? Why would these citizens stick their neck and reputation on the line knowing very well they would be bashed relentlessly? Do you honestly think the CHicago Tribune would put Lemont front and center for an article about the mismanagement of funds without doing research? I heard it took them 6 months! I for one can't wait to see how this lawsuit plays out. I am frankly sick and tired of it all. I wish Ricker and this board would resign. Now. The only candidates I will consider voting for will be the ones who are objective and no ties to any political group.

"Flo" if the only candidates you" would consider voting for are the ones who have no ties to any political group" Surely then, you would not consider voting for Mrs. Hughes - http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/2765872-418/filed-party-incumbent-election-seats.html

Ms. Albrecht, thank you so much for comment. You are right! Please let me clarify my intention. I do not intend to vote for any candidate with direct ties to the political citizens for 113a group. They are too friendly with the current administration and board. Nor have they come up with any creative ways to deal with the situation other than a maximim tax increase, that is in accordance with their proposition statement.

Ms. Mathews, How clever to direct people to a website created by a group of people who never identify themselves, but yet used the internet to hijack the name of a group who follows the law and actually registers itself to campaign for its position on a referndum. The real website for the Citizens group is www.citizensfor113a.com; it does not include the "sd" that was inserted to deceive unsuspecting web browsers into viewing referendum opponent content.
Click the tab to see the 113A citizens who are courageous enough to say they belevee a referendum is required, based on the district's financial situation and not necessarily because of whom they do or do not support on the Board or administration. Curious that no such tab exists on the anti-referendum site.
Make any claim you like about any group of people you want, but many community members will still maintain that a referendum is the only permanent solution to our financial woes.

A reminder from your friendly local editor:

"Instead of trying to memorize our terms of use, you might boil it down to three main policies: “Keep it clean,” “Don’t try to trick people,” and “Treat others as you’d like to be treated.” Easy, right?

We do our best to keep tabs on what is posted on the site, however Patch is under no obligation to screen or monitor Content, but may review Content from time to time at its sole discretion to determine compliance with this Acceptable Use Policy. Patch will make all determinations as to what Content is appropriate at its sole discretion. We may include, edit or remove any Content at any time without notice."

That being said, I would like to remind readers not to post links to the same website across several different stories. I would argue that qualifies as spam, which Patch does not allow.

Thank you,
Amanda Luevano

Not meaning to be malicious in any way, but according to the patch, they said Janet Hughes abstained from voting yesterday re: the high school issuing the TAWs. I'm curious why anyone would abstain from that vote unless you're in favor of state takeover. As I said, I'm not being malicious, I'm really curious to know why anyone would abstain.

What exactly would happen if the state took over the district for a short time? Would that be a bad thing? Obviously things aren't going well the way they are at this point. Maybe Ms. Hughs abstained thinking it would be best for the district if the state took it over. I'm starting to think that an outside force might be able to straighten this mess up by putting all personalities aside..... Just a thought.

Amanda Luevano, Thanks for keeping the fire hot on this subject. You are doing a fine job providing this avenue to voice opinions. My hat's off to you and the rest at Lemont Patch.

Mr. Quinn, From my understanding a state takeover could last 3-10 years (minimum of three). Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I think schools coming together to strengthen our community is a wonderful idea!! Kudos to the high school. IMO, I would think local control of our schools is far better than a state determining things for us. So, in your opinion, you think that Ms. Hughes might have abstained because she would prefer state takeover? I'm just curious if there are any other reasons for abstaining?

I can't speak for Ms. Hughs because I don't know her and I am grateful for the high school helping out but I can't help thinking that the district is sinking while all these different personalities tear each other apart. Sometimes its good to have an outsider make decisions leaving personalities aside. Just my opinion. What a great country we live in when we can air our opinions without fear. I think we are blessed.

I think we are hearing a lot of interesting comments from people who have no vested interest in our schools or our community. Bruno Behrend, aren't you involved with the Heartland Institute? That organization, closely tied with the Cato Institue? The group that denies global warming, while being funded by the big oil companies? The group that denies the effects of second hand smoke (while Phillip Morris paid for that "study"). Don't get me wrong, I am not entirely opposed to the Libretarian ideals. But own up to it. Financial support must come from somewhere. Let's get real people...those of us who LIVE in Lemont, who have CHILDREN in SD113a want our kids to get the best possible education. That's the reason many of us moved here in the first place. That doesn't happen when you can't pay the teachers. Or you lay off 70 or so of the finest grade school teachers around. No one LIKES to pay taxes but we need to (that whole death and taxes thing). Schools don't run if their are no taxes, Roads are impassible if there are no taxes, police and fire don't operate if there are no taxes. There is no library, no CORE, nothing, Nothing happens when a non-partisan school board has a very vocal (non-local) and extremely partisan opposition who hoodwinks (or routinely abstains from votes) the public. Put your political ideology aside and think about what is best for our children.

I too am puzzled why a board member would abstain from the TAW vote. Perhaps the abstaining board member, Janet Hughes, did not feel she had enough information to vote 'yes' or 'no.' Perhaps her lack of commitment to a 'yes' or 'no' vote was a passive attempt to support a state takeover. It seems, however, that Janet Hughes has a long, long history of abstaining or voting no on similar issues brought before the board. I respect differing opinions and think that solutions to issues are much richer when all involved can share different ideas. But, I have yet to hear substanial explanation from Janet Hughes on WHY she continues to abstain/vote 'no' on financial issues, other than she wants an audit. I have personally asked Janet Hughes to step up and participate constructively during board meetings by offering information about WHY she is abstaining or voting 'no.' However, more importantly, I would like to hear her SOLUTIONS to the financial issues at hand. I would like the district to move forward and find solutions to our financial woes. Continuing to abstain, vote 'no' and not participate in constructive discussion that leads to SOLUTIONS is no longer acceptable to me. I respectfully request that Janet Hughes offer SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS GOING FORWARD or stop wasting a board seat that could be occupied with someone who brings substance to the table.

completely unrealistic to think that an infusion of money would make 113A a Butler District 53 or anything near them. It took years to build that District in to what it is today. 113A was a reasonably solid school, but not a great school. Being a product of District 92 from way back, I am certain that through this financial disaster, our kids will be okay. That being said, it is our board's fiduciary responsibility to spend all monies coming in in a manner that makes our district stronger. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. So, a complete examination of where money is being spent and how we can spend less is needed. I know it sounds like I am oversimplifying things, but, for example, at one of the board meetings I attended a new administration member was hired at above the top level of that job's salary range. Markedly above. One board member explained that it was for the children. When Karen Siston voted no explaining that we simply could not afford this person, other board members rolled their eyes and shook their heads. I wondered why Mary Gricus wasn't placed in this position temporarily. That move could have saved the district a decent chunk of change. This all took place after 113A's financial situation was public knowledge. So, I guess the solution is thoughtfully examine the way 113A is running, place team members and programs we can afford, cut the ones we cannot and re-evaluate often.

And as to the cash infusion needed to keep our district afloat, why not examine the feasibility of selling off some of the real estate currently held by 113A? I know it kind of stinks, but in this economic climate aren't we all faced with making hard choices to keep our households afloat? Wouldn't it be better than further taxing an already stretched community? and, maybe, a state takeover?

Ugh. In this economic climate I cannot even guesstimate. I know I am going to get clobbered for this, but how about selling Central school? If anyone is interested in buying it. I heard the Archdiocese was possibly interested at one time. Also, I believe they have a parcel of land near the proposed sight of the failed pedway project (I-355 and Old Quarry).

Oh, and they have a parcel off of 131st. Not sure where, though. I looked for a comprehensive list, but haven't found one yet.

Also, Bromberek school and the property on State Street next to Illinois Bar and Grill (arguably a prime piece of commercial real estate).

Mr. Behrend,
If you do not have a child in this district and you do not pay taxes for this district, then the only possible reason that you can have for involving yourself in this debate is your own political motives.
Well, Mr. Behrend, with all due respect, stay out of it. These are my children, and I will not have you or your political group use them as pawns in your experiment in educational reform. At least the board members, regardless of what mistakes they may or may not have made, have a vested interest in our community.
I find it unconscionable that you would further your political agenda on the backs of little children. Shame on you! Go away.

Why anyone would object to well-meaning contributions and genuine help with our local issues from learned, "outside" academics and intellectuals is beyond me. Are we so insular we cannot be open to new ideas -- especially when the status quo is so woefully broken?

Mr. Behrend, Did you feel the same way in the early 90's when your 401ks quadrupled in value because of the stock market explosion, while the public worker pension system still guaranteed workers the same rate of pension payouts? People who take these jobs with "guaranteed pension benefits" do get a "sure thing" however, when other people benefit from stock market explosions and their retirements explode as well, the public servants do not reap the benefits of that. Sometimes the gamble of a sure thing works out better than the quest for big bucks. Sounds like you have a case of sour grapes. Your political agenda is just that- an agenda. Your comments here are self serving. If you feel the need to "save" or reform the system, why aren't you running for public office?? I bet it has something to do with not giving up your comfortable River Forest life style.

What's wrong with having a political agenda? Citizens for 113A certainly does, and bully for them. Some of their tactics leave a bad taste, and I wish more of their members were open to opposing viewpoints, but it's all there in the record for people to decide if the ends justify the means.
Every time I go to the polls to vote I have a political agenda. Mine happens to be free market solutions and free market capitalism, but if yours is something else, as Mr. Behrend says, vive le difference.

Dave,

Yes I am, but I'm operating with limited information, which I'm seeking. I plan to work on something over the weekend. I'm easily found and accessible, if you have any interest in discussing it too.

I am all for new ideas. To make them valuable to this discussion and to 113A they must be:
1) Relevant and specific to the financial crisis facing Lemont; general ideas and direction are not helpful. I want specific actionable ideas...sale of land is a good example. Not sure it is feasible or enough, but a good example of a specific solution.
2) Feasible under the law, as it exists TODAY, not if it could be reformed.
3) Able to be implemented in enough time to keep 113A afloat, which means within the next 6 months.
According to the Monday Board meeting discussion, the D210 bail out only keeps us afloat until the end of June. We cannot wait for national or state reform of the school system. We need solutions that solve the financial crisis now, to properly educate the current group of 113A students and to preserve our home values.
If you have ideas that meet the criteria I mentioned, please post them and send them to the 113A board members for consideration. Their email addresses are on the district website.

Mary, You've got it going on too. You are thinking for the community. Your three points are direct. "Relevant...Feasible for today (We aren't Springfield)...and TIME. Susan Petrarca, I'm political, a conservative, and a teacher. Imagine that. I can be all and still be swayed to change my political, conservative, educated mind if the information is relevant and rational. I've invited Bruno to do this and he hasn't been capable of doing so, yet. Ask around. I won't sit if my time, money, or efforts are wasted. I was extremely disappointed to know how money had been spent for affairs listed up above, as all teachers and community members were. Are we all so perfect that can't acknowledge mistakes were made by the people we elected and appointed, and accept our negligence for not getting involved sooner? Really? I stood aside a man at a recent board meeting and engaged in a "hello". He was so bitter, like many. I understood him, but he didn't seem to understand that I was heartbroken over what the community was facing. I saw myself in him as I was years ago. It makes me want to be better at trying to be better and think what is better. Bruno keeps trying to inflect words about greedy teacher unions, that is not the case in Lemont. I just want to wake up and feel excited to teach. Parents have been so understanding and appreciative of the working condition we are now faced with.

The teachers of Lemont have always accepted less that state average in negotiations, because this is WHERE WE WANTED TO BE! This is where many of the teachers live and choose to raise their families! This is where we have faith! This is where we know we can! You are right, Bruno. I won't say, "Do it for the children of Lemont." This is where I say, "Do it for everyone in Lemont!"

I have stayed out of the fray because I said something stupid, but in light of the 66% illinois income tax hike i o longer feel so bound. Simple point you cannot disconnect a local taxing authority from a statewide one. People get it, STOP REACHING IN TO MY WALLET. Unfunded (massively) the teachers pension fund! the state will not declare bankruptcy so this fund and others have to be paid. We know they are coming for more of our money. Until the teachers statewide say they are willing to pay some of their retirement costs I cannot agree to pay more to 113A. I go the chipain's, those young employee's kid brothers and sisters deserve better, but, taxpayers have families too. I sorry, in my mind, to get what parents of students in 113A want requires us to unite and go to Springfield and say "The kids in Lemont are being squeeezed" and I want something done. Instead all I hear is the same old--"Let's take the easy way"(and get more from th elocal citizenry.)

We, the teachers, have always, every year, met our share in pension funding in Illinois. Lawmakers have agreed to and contracted us to do work for the community and haven't taken care of their fair share. The law makers continue to use "their negotiated" share to pay for other things that they promise to other groups. Don't put the blame on unions and teachers. Be mad at the law makers that say they will pay for our services and everybody else's with your taxes at the same time. I can only cast my vote for whom I believe will do as they say in government. Al....Bruno thinks Dave should take a $10,000 voucher and educate his children outside 113a. That's more than Bruno recommends Dave, or any other citizen, should pay in 113a in Lemont to educate their child! 113a had 90% of its student meet or exceed state standards with less than $10,000 per child. How many public schools can say that? A+ for EFFICIENCY. Rock on Chicago Magazine for recognizing 113a!

Mr. Finn, I empathize with you. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, and Illinois finances are deplorable. However, you need to consider facts to understand why local residents are being asked to step up.
77% of District revenue comes from local property taxes. Our District’s tax rate is significantly lower than the state median for elementarydistricts. As a result, our funding per pupil is the lowest of all of the 68 large elementary schools in Cook, DuPage and Will counties.
• $1.55 Cook, $1.62 DuPage per $100 EAV
• $2.53 state median per $100 EAV

Only 12% of our revenue is provided by the State of Illinois. However, a majority of those funds are restricted to specific uses such as state mandated programs and transportation and does not fully cover the actual cost of those programs. The State of Illinois still owes District 113A money. If I rememebr correctly form Monday's meeting, the ISBE appointed treasurer said we can expect to receive only about $500K of about $3M that is owed. I may be mistaken, but I think that is what I heard.

The bottom line is that the funding model in Illinois places the burden for public schooling on the local community. Yes, that stinks. But without changing the law - unlikely to happen anytime soon - that is the world we live in.

Now facts aside, please stop bashing the teachers. You are stereotyping, and I wish you would talk to Lemont's teachers before making such statements. They are amazing.

Martin, I tried as you, to be a passive listener. I can respect you for feeling awkward, I do every day. I wonder where my place is and if what I feel is accepted. I have questions, as others, that I need to look into like the properties mentioned, I'll be asking around until I'm confident to post. I wonder what Ill State tax income increase will do for 133a, I'll be asking around until I'm confident to post. And I wonder, too, what you could have said that was so awful, recently or in the past. It's not so hard to say you were wrong if you really feel it. It can actually help your credibility in the future. Besides, you gain respect for yourself and from others. Teacher moment.

Jesus, Mary, you make a great case for the local kids. My neighbors young children get picked up every day by the bus and I want to look in their eyes and say "you're getting the best, go work hard" But I also know the conditions of this state and the lack of political leadership, and, I wonder if the earnest supporters of 113A turn a blind eye to this, and, focus on only immediate goals. Let us join for something more lasting. Perhaps if we saw this cooperation, we could work to some local relief, which as an old childless townie I could still smile about. Further, it sounds like some immediate goals could be attained by selling of some assets. Go for it. I understand Dick Morris and Michael Medved are coming to town for some forum on public education, I will be there.

Mr. Finn, I share your concern for the condition of public education both in our state and country. I have contacted not only my state reps, but also sent a letter to Arne Duncan, US secretary of education, about the state of Illinois and specifically Lemont schools.

While I personally fight for broader change in our flawed system, I must also fight for local change within the circumstances I find myself. My kids have 4 more years before they reach high school, and I want those years spent in a district that has the resources necessary to educate them properly. I don't want to worry about whether the teacher has enough paper to print their homework assignment. (Yes, a valid concern - some teachers require kids to copy their problems off the board into their own notebooks to save copy paper. A waste of instructional time, but it does save a few pennies.)

I fight for the referendum because it is the only feasible solution that has emerged given the hours and hours of research I have done on our local problems.

I will vote YES on APRIL 5th. I hope I have convinced you and others to do the same.

Susan, truthfully, I am just a local taxpayer who has recently been educated more thoroughly in this whole mess. Mostly, I reflexively objected to the "more" for schools agenda. it has cost all of us dearly, I think. Dropout factories, corruptness at the very least and more broadly, an avenue to churn money away from useful purposes. The limited and recent exposure I have encountered to the local scene has not been pretty and therefore reinforced my stance. Blame, locally, seems widespread. Some out of power obstructionists can't be the only culprits. Nor can some "missing" money. I don't think that can bankrupt a district. My own opinion is that the district planned poorly and lived richly when it should have known better. The supporters of more money for 113A, however, want us to elect that same management which watched it happen. It is hard for someone like me to then say okay let's let them try again, maybe they learned their lesson. i am at least aware of the dilemma now, I have to leave it at that.

Martin, I hope you are, just looking for help in making a decision. I, for one, have felt 113a admin hasn't gotten enough information out to residents without children in the district. I don't know of any who have dropped out of 113A. I remember what % of income I paid for gas at the pump when I was 16, sounds like you do too. There is no more useful purpose, in my eyes, than to fuel the kid that is going to find the cure for something down the road of my lifetime. You are right, I'm tired of blame too. It ate away at who I wanted to be. It consumed me. Who were we when we were young. I know I could forgive and understand better. Don't tell my father, but I may have even been a little more liberal. I became all too bitter in years. But did I need to interject and be a pessimist on everything? I still work at it, trust me. I'm glad you see that the "mishandled funds" couldn't have put 113A in the circumstance where we are now. Know that I spoke up in faculty meetings when information was made public. Know that other administrators spoke up and together teachers and administrators worked together to make corrections.

We are all doing our jobs and are focusing our time there today, no matter how morally unappreciated we feel, beaten by a few. It is those parents that send a "thank you" that mean the most. Please know that I do not have a vote, I reside outside the boundaries. Lord knows if I'll make it to early retirement after the burn-out from these years to come. But if I had a million dollars and didn't need to work, didn't have a child in the district, and didn't have Bruno misleading my town into thinking they represent "everything Illinois", MY VOTE WOULD STILL BE "YES", PASS THE REFERENDUM!

Readers,

I wanted to take another opportunity to thank you for your lively debate on District 113A. I appreciate the fact that you're coming to Patch to discuss an important community issue.

However, I would ask that everyone involved do their best to avoid personal attacks. I am aware that this has been a problem in the past, so I would appreciate if everyone could stick to the topic/article at hand when they're posting.

A professor once told me that the best kind of journalism is the journalism that sparks a conversation. I am happy to continue providing a forum for discussion, so long as everyone can abide by our terms of use (and general human decency).

For those of you with longer posts, I would encourage you to share your thoughts with the community in a letter to the editor, which can be mailed to me directly at amanda@patch.com.

Thank you,
Amanda Luevano
Editor, Lemont Patch

Susan,
Thanks for your years of dedicated teaching in our school district and thanks for being a big influence in our son's education when you taught him in 3rd grade at Central. Your comments have been very thought provoking and professional. You are a terrific example to all our young children and parents in District 113A. Keep up the good fight. You and all the teachers have my support if a referendum is placed on the ballot April 5th. The last thing we want in Lemont is the State of Illinois overseeing our schools!!!
Sincerely,
Tim Peraino

Mrs. Antonoff,
Your hard work and dedication to teaching is appreciated by parents and students. We see the fruit of your labor everyday. Thank you.

Kay - You don't know me, where I live, or what I do, so why would you personally attack me? Fight my words, but not my character. I do not care what you think of me, my friends in town know my cahracter well, and am confident in it.

I am giving you the respect you failed to show me and I will simply say, Agree to disagree.

Sorry readers - just realized my recent reply to Kay Johnson, who attacked me last evening in a post while I slept soundly in my bed, is no longer in the string.

My guess is that she is yet another made-up alias by a board candidate/lawsuit plaintiff or their friends. Guess they don't like being called out as I did yesterday.

For anyone who saw the post, let me answer Kay's question. No, I don't live in a pretty pink palace.

Rational, logical decisions and reasonable reform that respects a child's right to an education, and is based on the actual facts here in our district (not some statewide abstract) are the best way for us to help ourselves. Forget the hallow sloganeering (Vive le difference! [sic]) of the pseudo-intellectuals that only seek to sow the seeds of dissension and pit parent against parent to raise their own political capital.
Again, politely yet emphatically (as I would not want to be accused of bullying anyone), GO AWAY.

And thus you prove the point.

Let me get this straight. People are actually arguing that the worst state in the United States who is delinquent to our school district for millions of dollars is a better option for solving our problems than our own members of the Community. After just getting jacked by our state for a 66% tax increase, people honestly believe that this state is going to give a damn about you as a parent or a taxpayer. They have already withheld millions of dollars of our taxes that was intended to go back to our community for the purpose of educating our kids. They threw every single proposal to cut costs at the state level out the window and only voted to raise Mr. Finn's and everyone elses taxes. Yet, Bruno and others are advocating a course of action that will pull us further into this mess by tying us further into the "machine" Bruno rails against.

In case there is any confusion at all, let me clear this up for everyone. The state doesn't give a damn about you as a Lemont taxpayer or your child if you are a parent. Despite all the rhetoric, I have little confidence that the NEA cares either. However, the teachers in this town do care about your child and do a pretty good job. If you feel differently, then you have an opportunity to address your concerns face to face. I also believe that the local school board cares as well. That is not to say mistakes will not be made and that is not to say that they will balance the taxpayer/funding ratio as well as you would like. What can be said, is that they are accountable to the citizens via local elections, they are approachable with complaints, and (as evidenced here) the debate in the community itself has a very significant effect on the boards actions.

If we allow a state takeover. WE WILL HAVE NO SAY IN ANYTHING.

So, my advice is simply to play our hand we are dealt as best we can. We need to step up and take responsibility and control as much as we can locally. We need to do everything possible to break away from state and federal control, and it starts with establishing a solid financial foundation. Once in control, we need to address the costs as the opportunities present themselves as contracts expire, pay what we can afford to pay, and let the chips fall.

We then should encourage to Bruno to take his fight to the source instead of encouraging frivilous lawsuits against our Community. Hell, we should actively support him. Let him and his organizations sue the NEA for antitrust. Let him sue the the "machine" for racketeering. Let him blast away in the hope that he might break through.

Yes. I am a conservative who supports the referendum. I have major issues with the educational system, but my support is absolutely consistent with my principles that responsibily should reside as close to the individual as possible and all efforts to pull that responsibility further towards the central government must be resisted. We need the responsibility for our education to be shared in the Community for it to work. Beyond that, I see that the state and federal government have very little to offer. Right now, efforts are being made that will ensure our financial demise and guarantee a state takeover and pull control away from us. Everyone must resist these efforts.

My concerns: 113A lived beyond its means and those in power should have been savvy enough exert financial leadership and management. Clearly, they did not. Justification for this has been that it is impossible to tell parents that "all the bells and whistles" are not available even though there is money in the cookie jar. Hogwash. Board members must manage expectations and plan for the future, not just be kind little souls spoiling their constituents. The fear, of course, is that the same mentally will ramp up again. Also, there was a comment here in the past about how,in the old days, "everything" was paid for and now, it all comes out of mine paycheck. This also scares a taxpayer as I'm sure most want a return to those "good old days". I never hear anything about how new funds would be spent and what safeguards exist for the local taxpayer against returning to a time which, frankly, I am not supportive of.

Martin,

Those concerns are understandable. I agree that managing expectations is a criteria of board membership that deserves more attention as I would remind everyone that we are all constituents. As such, we do have responsibility to not only finance the operation but also to shape it's policies and programs. We must recognize that any elected board or body reacts to the constiutuents that communicate with them. It is also important to recognize that the further away the board is from the people to more difficult it is to communicate and also to get a response.

Right now, I do think the board has made severe cuts and has spent considerable effort managing expectations. They do deserve some credit.

Janet is the only member of the board who deserves no credit whatsoever. She has demonized everyone else for a financial situation that we all knew existed for years. She was dishonest with the community about the cuts that were necessary to balance the budget. She either abstained or voted against every cost cutting measure that was taken to balance the budget. She plays both sides by criticizing the spending and criticizing the cuts. I don't not see how anyone can be supportive of that.

As far as safeguards. I can offer only this. The further away your elected representative is from zip code 60439, the fewer safeguards that there are.

Demonstrably false Bruno. Our "home-grown elected officials" did the best with what they had, which if you look at the statistics, wasn't all that much.

Happy Friday, readers!

I'm working on a story, and I'd like some input. If anyone has one or two questions they would like answered about the School Finance Authority or state takeover in general, please e-mail me at amanda@patch.com or post on this thread.

Thanks,
Amanda

Hi Amanda,

If the State of Illinois board of education takes over our school district, will we still have a SD113a Board of Education and superintendent? Or since the state will now be making many of the management decisions for the schools, will those positions lose their decision making authority or even be eliminated? Thank you.

What has been the actual experience in districts where the state has taken over? Have taxes been raised? Have the district been returned to solvency? Have the measurable variables in educational quality improved? Class size? Non "core" classes? Language classes? Supplemental technology?

State takeovers of Illinois school districts don’t happen often. When they do, IMHO, they’re brutal, and somewhat like an STD in that they don’t go away. Go here http://www.isbe.state.il.us/finance/default.htm and scroll to the bottom for info on districts where the state has intervened. The process is supposed to start with a Financial Oversight Panel, which has no authority to raise taxes, but oversees and ensures the Board sticks to its recovery plan. The next stage is a School Finance Authority, which can raise taxes to the max without referendum, which was done in Round Lake. Round Lake is finally crawling out from under after 10 years or so. Divided as Lemont might be, I’d hope y’all would unite on keeping the state out. My district faced a state takeover, and last August, the ISBE made a presentation about how it’s triggered and what happens. The narrative is in item 3.6 at http://www.cary26.org/documents/8.9.10FinanceBoardAlpprovedMinutes.pdf. I think I can scare up a copy of the presentation ISBE made if anyone’s interested.

To more directly answer the above questions… The BoE stays in place, whatever happens. It still has decision making authority under an FOP, but can be overruled by an SFA. An SFA can replace the superintendent. In Round Lake, I think the Supe was replaced, but I don’t know if it was voluntary or not. When I visited the district in early 2005, the administration were SFA people. In Round Lake, my understanding is that local property taxes were immediately raised to the maximum limits allowed by the school code, with no vote. As to the academic performance during the state’s occupation, I’d recommend checking the state report cards -- http://webprod1.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getSearchCriteria.aspx.

Of course, I may not be qualified to comment on this, since I don't live in Lemont.

I'm hoping I'm understanding. Chris indicates Round Lake was taken over by the state and the link shows that after the take over the students performed lower than the state average?

Chris Jenner, thank you for bringing your (un) knowledge to the table. You are right, you don't live in Lemont, and more reason you need to leave us alone. Maybe you are the Board Secertary for Cary Commuity School District 26. From my understanding Cary is in need of help as much as we are. So why are you wasting your time on this blog?

Sweden (9,302,123) to the US (307,006,00),

I viewed the link to Round Lake's School Report Card. I'm not sure we can compare their situation to Lemont's. The communities are very different. Round Lake's district is 68.1% Hispanic. They have a Low Income Rate of 60.4%, to Lemont's 8.6%. Their Limited English Learners in Round Lake are at 23.4 to Lemont's 7.3%. I can only imagine their needs are not Lemont's.

Michelle, you're right. Another blogger with a website. Though I do think she did attempt to provide some local information, just not sure why or if what she puts ups is valid. She didn't say why Round Lake needed the state to come in. Could have been based more on academic performance. Without seeing what was happening 10 years ago to their community, as she indicates, I don't see how we can include her talking points any further.

Wow, I just used Chris's State Report Card link to look up River Forest SD. You know, the town where Bruno Behrend chooses to buy real estate and raise his child. Last school year RF spent $7,518 per student on instruction (over state ave.), compared to Lemont's $5,767 per student (under state ave.) Then see River Forest's total Operational Expenditure per student $12,363 (over state ave.), compared to Lemont's $9,808 per student (under state ave.) Very interesting.