Parents of private school children PAY for extracurricular activities. No hand outs from the taxpayers. I am all for supporting public education and EDUCATING the kids. But the freebee field trips and extra-curricular stuff I don't want to pay for anymore. I think the increased interest too shows a lack of trust in the superintendant and current BOE. Just saying . . .

This is a reply to Mr. Lee - As one of the founders and officers of the Warrior Booster Club, I can assure you that parents with children in 113A also PAY dearly for extracurricular activities. In accordance with the ISBE rules, the Warrior Booster Club raised over $110,000 to cover the cost of all extra-curricular activities at Old Quarry this year. These activities cost the taxpayers $0. This money came from fundraisers, business and private sponsors and parents paying for their child to participate in activities. (for example, I believe boy's basketball participants paid over $300 ) My daughter signed up for several activities and it cost me well over $600...If you would like more information on our organization, please visit our website at www.warriorboosterclub.com or you can even find information at the Lemont Reporter website - our efforts earned us one of their 'Stories of the Year' for 2010. Just saying.......

Thank you all for your comments. I believe some more information can be found on this article: http://patch.com/A-ck4n . It is true that the Warrior Booster Club and Lemont Band Boosters are currently running extracurriculars in 113A as fee-based activities. The schools have also cut field trips. More information on what the schools have cut in order to provide academic resources can be found here: http://patch.com/A-cv2r

"Outside of the classroom, District 113A extracurricular programs also experienced a big change.

The band program, which was previously part of the middle-school curriculum, is now a fee-based, after-school activity run by the Lemont Band Boosters. Additionally, the newly-formed Warrior Booster Club kept sports and clubs alive by charging parents between $100 and $350 per child.

Some parents also said they are paying extra so their children don't fall behind in class. Lemont resident Cindy Schuit said she has looked into tutors and other resources for her three children.

'I'm willing to pay more for my kids' education, but it's sad that the entire community can't come together and support our schools,' Schuit said."

Amanda, Tim claims that enrollment is flat. See post below.

Actual enrollment is down 200 from last year.

No disrespect meant Paul but it seems like you doubt our class sizes as you have "extra large" in quotes. Please come check out our classrooms if you have any doubt. Class size is my biggest concern in all this as I have seen a dramatic difference in my kid's (daughter especially) ability to learn.
Patsy Browne-Winterland

Quote #1 "That would be true if you keep the ongoing expense of the staff that is no longer needed due to the drop in enrollment."

Quote #2 (same post) "Only with additionaly revenue will the district be able to keep the staff it currently employs and lower class size over time."

So which is it? Admit over staffing by stating "no longer needed" (see enrollment data), or quote #2 the district needs 'more money to employ staff that is no longer needed'.

The point is, matching resources with 'standard work' (LEAN principle) is fundamental to a balance budget and successful (and expected) outcomes.
I don't see this happening based on available data.

"Bottomline: LEAN, JIT and whatever other buzzwords you may choose is not a viable option because this is not a private business."

Not buzzwords, but effective tools in which to manage resources.
Not a private business? Exactly why there is a problem.
I do agree that the Community needs to take responsable for fixing our own problems. My point is to put all ideas on the table and pursue them on a number of fronts.

Time to pry open those contracts. This cannot continue.

"In this case, seeking more money to repair the damage is the only answer"

It always is to government-types. The entire private sector is shrinking, but the government beast must feed off the ever shrinking carcass.

Typical public sector mindset. We spend regardless of the available funds.

It's time to reopen all contracts, both personnel and supply and get some savings right now.

It was the responsibility of those in control of the situation to adjust expenses to at least match their revenues, if they couldn't be less.

The current power structure has shirked that responsibility. Now they demand that we pay.

The property tax increase limits had a twofold purpose. One, to control property tax increases that had increasingly hurt many homeowners at an alarming rate. Two, the limits forced fiscal responsibility.

Those who ignored #2 above are still in power and/or employed by the district. How is this abdication of responsibility not an actionable item that should have resulted in dismissals for cause?

Right. Even if these problems were intentionally created by a few people in and employed by the community, it is our job now to pick up the mess.

Clean house on election day, people!

Well said!

No increases can be guaranteed. Not in this economic climate.

Decreases are what need to be guaranteed.

The passage of this bond issue will provide exactly what impetus for controlling these costs?

All non-affiliated staff need a pay cut. The problem is too much expense now and for the past few years.

It was a fine game of chicken to play with the taxpayers of Lemont. The thought was that we could be forced into a tax hike. Big mistake with big consequences.

The time for cuts is now.

There needs to be substantial cuts in expenses in this area. The fight cannot be over how much present and future increases can be. There needs to be cuts in real dollars, not in baseline projected increases.

Not really. The state can void contracts. That may be something that is necessary at this point.

This is going to be rough.

True. However, the district is projected to once again be out of money this summer.

The spending spree by the current power structure has reached its end and none of them have the courage to stand up and say that across-the-board cuts are needed.

I don't think this adds up, sequentially. Maybe it's me, but I think it would've been best to have the new contract wrapped up before asking the residents for additional money.

To quote The Joker in The Dark Knight:

"It's all part of the plan."

The problem took time to build to the critical mass that it has taken at this time. Small steps would have prevented this, but those in power, and this includes administrative staff members, chose to force the issue. This was all intentional. This was also the M.O. of the leader of this expedition and he left wreckage in his wake at a prior employer. It is illuminating what you find when you do a little digging.

Kevin Doherty admitted exactly this fact at the town hall meeting when a Lemont resident asked how this mess was created.

Start at the top. Work you way down. Across the board wage reductions and eliminations. Once operational balance is surpassed, the extra savings should go towards hiring additional staff as can be paid for.

This was the plan all along. The issue was forced.

I have to be honest, I think the bond issue will pass.

Which 68 schools did you choose for your study? How did you go about choosing these particular schools?

Bob, its the 68 school districts in Cook, Will, and Dupage counties which are classified by the ISBE as "Large Elementary".

https://district113a.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/sd113a-lemont-paul-kelly/

Yep, always great to justify doing the wrong thing by claiming it was less of a mistake than 67 other locations made.

Do you see why the public doesn't trust you?

Tom, what are you even arguing here? Pointing out how the district compares to other similar ones in spending and funding seems like a pretty relevant point to make right now.

If 113a obtained funding from or mutually with those 67 other districts, I might actually care how they spend their money. 113a does not, so what they do simply doesn't matter.

This is about the pool of funds available to 113a and how much of it was spent.

Cost reductions have to be in the picture. Across the board. That is the only long-term solution.

"out of 68 large elementary schools in 3 counties, 113A has the lowest revenue per pupil and THE LOWEST EXPENSE per pupil. The district cut $4.1M from the budget in the last two years. "

Given the above stats, the obvious response should not be, 'Cut the spending even more per pupil'...at least not if you actually CARE about the education you are providing to the pupils. The school is underfunded. Even you have admitted that before and they need more revenue. Once again, you advocate to cut cut cut with complete disregard to the quality of education. Mary is right. We need to work on the other end of the equation and increase revenues to the school.

It truly does not matter what the other 67 districts spent per pupil, or in total.

Does quality spending get quality results? For the past few years, the quality has not inched all that much upwards, despite all the quality spending. We do have a quality dilemma here, created by the quality people in charge.

Lemont, please clean house when you vote. No incumbents, please.

Again, I think your referendum will pass. I also think that the net revenue will be lower than expected and proponents will be disappointed in the operational improvements they will afford. Class sizes will remain too high to suit some in this community and the demands will persist and the shouting will only get louder.

I said this would be rough. Sadly, I will not be disappointed.

If the referendum passes, maybe only half of the lost teachers will be brought back. This will help to reduce class sizes, but yes, they will probably still be too high. It will be a move in the right direction. And people will still demand better, which they should. I want to live in a community that demands the best for education. People should always want to improve the schools. When presented with a school that has the lowest revenue and expenses per pupil than any other comparable school around, I want my community to choose to support the school by increasing its revenues via a tax increase. I don't think we should advocate to cut cut cut and be the cheapest school around....lowest revenues, lower than lowest expenses.
Yes, quality spending does get quality results. Despite having the lowest revenue per pupil and the lowest expenses per pupil, we still have good report card results.

Like I said. The passage will change little. The pressure to cut costs will be averted. Long term issues will not get solved.

By quality spending, I was facetiously referring to the quantity. Lame attempt at writing on my part, but do we expect anything less?

You have to match your revenues with expenses no matter what. There needs to be a cut in compensation costs across the board. That will stretch the available dollars further and could eventually enable more personnel to be hired.

The sacrifice must be shared. Thus far, the kids and the taxpayers are carrying the brunt of this. Those who are on the receiving end of this largess must also sacrifice.

The passage will not be solve all of our issues. Not at all. While it may seem like 'little' will change from how things are now, I think things would be VERY different if the referendum fails. If it fails, we do not just continue on as we are now. MORE CUTS would result. In addition to the possibility of a state take over. This $1/day referendum buys us some more time to work on the long term solutions.

As you know, the contracts are being renegotiated in the very near future. That should not prohibit people from voting to pass this referendum.

Also, I think you should look closely and educate yourself on each Board candidate. Just because they are an incumbent, does not scratch them off my radar. I am attending all the meetings now to see whom I like and do not like. I have been very impressed with some BoE members and very unimpressed with others. You should not lump them all in one bucket. I look forward to the debate(s).

You can't just brush off the fact that the sequencing is out of line. Making the decision with the current facts at hand means we have unsustainable labor contracts currently. As of now, you can't assume that would change. This means just throwing more money at the same problem, which will not solve anything.

Do yours, Sue, and check it.

This referendum takes the pressure off of the soon to be starting teachers' contract negotiations. There is little incentive to cut employee costs if there is more money to spend.

"It's all part of the plan." - The Joker, The Dark Knight.

The takers can and do stack pensions. You read about this all the time and it is the dirty little secret of the municipal pension system.

Can the makers do that? Nope. The makers can't stack Social Security sources of retirement income and get multiple monthly payouts.

The takers can retire from one covered position, then take another elsewhere and have two separate sources of retirement income, all at the makers' expense.

"Tommy, "The sacrifice must be shared. Thus far, the kids and the taxpayers are carrying the brunt of this. Those who are on the receiving end of this largess must also sacrifice. If you are referring to teachers sacrificing, we have and continue to."

Really Sue? Have you taken a pay cut or had your contributions to retirement increased? If the answer is 'no' then you have not contributed to the bottom line and shared the sacrifice.

"My unpaid hours of work go beyond counting,..."

Oh dear. Wal Mart got into serious trouble for off-the-clock work being done. I think you may have an actionable item there if true. Might want to contact an attorney.

"I will never make full retirement,"

Why? You a smoker, drinker, or a skydiver? Just sayin'...

"nearly 10% of my paycheck is paid towards my pension"

12.4% goes into my non-stackable social security. Your point?

"You paid taxes to meet my contractual obligations."

Yup. Still do and still will.

"Why not ask the state to make good on their end of the contracts? I met my end."

They can't afford to. That's the point. The Ponzi scheme is collapsing despite your contributions as they always do.

"Shouldn't you be asked to pay more into Social Security to cover the costs of government mismanagement?"

Like 113a is asking?

"Exactly, how do you see it that I, as a teacher, am not contributing?"

To the needed cuts in compensation costs that mightily push expenses above revenues.

Paul, Paul, Paul. Our wonderful contracts prohibit such job sharing, even though that was another cheap shot attempt to ridicule and shame the makers into silence. Nice try.

It's not about deserving it. If that were the case, then why aren't they all getting "Super(intendent)-size-me" wages? How about even more than that? Pay for worth of output and influence, we say. Right there with you. They are wonderful teachers (even Sue). There are some extraordinary teachers in the district, teachers that will have their life lessons remembered for a lifetime and their positive influence tangibly felt in the near future of this community.

Sadly,...it's about affording it, pure and simple.

If 113a isn't paying enough, there are other locations that could, perhaps, ante up an amount more to their liking.

Cruel? To a degree, yes. Also the same choices faced by many of Lemont's un- and underemployed makers, many of whom even now contemplate a move to where the work is.

I don't know about mandated. The revenue has been up every year though.

You have my admiration in your work. You have my sympathy for what needs to happen to employee costs in the district. There is no question that the financial pain that so many in Lemont have shared will soon afflict you. It is not a reflection on the inspiration or dedication of the teachers of 113a. It is simply economic reality.

Dear readers, how many of you had a guaranteed wage increase last year? How about this year? I won't bother about asking about next year.

Salaries need to be cut, folks. It's not whether someone deserves a raise or not. 113a simply can't afford it. Not now.

I am absoultely for nurses making more money and the reason I had to get on tonight! I have always said nurses, firefighthers, policemen, and teachers (of which I am one) should be some of the most appreciated professions. Notice I didn't say well paid, I said most appreciated! Recent comments on this blog and others do not respect some of those professions. How can people bash nurses, policemen, firefighters, or teachers?

Thank you for bringing this idea up of paying nurses better. I'm sure most people realize that nurses run things much like teachers. Get those salaries up for nurses and decrease the doctors salaries that is the new cause. Can you please reach out to Mr. Durkin and Mrs. Rodagno to see what they can do to make this happen. You are on to a great idea here. I can't believe no one thought of this earlier. Make all doctors take a pay cut and increase nurses salaries since truly we know the nurses are the ones who run things. Now this is a community working together to come up with new ideas. Thank you, Mr. Finn, for giving us this new cause to work with . Nurses need to be paid better and doctors should take pay cuts. Thank you!!!

FYI, what do you mean I need to contribute to my retirement and health benefits? I know I do!

Here's my phone number and please call me with questions before you post anything that might not be truthful! I've reached out to you in the past and you haven't responded so please do!

Michelle Nevin
630 410-8435

Bob, just want to make sure that you know that if teachers in 113A don't make steps to improve their education they will have their pay frozen after so many years per the contract. You also understand that we lost 25% of our staff last year which would have represnted a large group of people who didn't have their masters degree. So now it seems that everyone has a masters degree, however, we lost 25% of our staff last year. Just want to make sure that it makes sense to people.

Michelle Nevin
630 410-8435

The experience of other districts that went the state takeover route does not bear out the hyperbole offered by those with the most to personally lose in the event one takes place.

I already went to a forum. Most illuminating. Many of my questions were ansered, some of which actually bode well for this debt excursion. There is also much that they don't know about the results of the bond issue. Little things like whether or not the$20 million was a gross number or the net proceeds of a larger bond issue.

This thing is going to pass. Then the real fun begins.

Who is asking taxpayers to "forget about all that stuff we messed up awhile ago"? Isn't that what elections are for? If you don't like the way the board has acted in the past, by all means vote for someone else. That's an entirely separate issue from the referendum. Voting no on the referendum won't fire board members you are unhappy with.

Brian, don't be coy. Many on this list are asking the makers to forget what the takers did with the last few years of what they took. We are admonished to just go ahead and pass this, take on this debt, even as a new school board will take the reins and may have a different idea about how to fix the still-existing issues.

Again, this thing will likely pass. Then the fun will really begin.

I'm not being coy Tom. It's beyond simple. Voting against the referendum will have ZERO effect on the board. None. I'm not admonishing anyone. I'm stating a simple fact. The only way to change the board is to vote for or against the board members. You can do that regardless of how you vote on the referendum.

I agree, Brian, on the election of board members.

However, you can't possibly say that the referendum will not have any effect on the board. Of course it will. The new board will either have more money to play with or they won't. No effect? Hardly.

That does not answer the charge that there are those who have said that the makers should simply forget what the takers did before and just vote this in.

Tom, it's silly that I have to be this specific, but I'll change what I said to simply state that voting no on the referendum will have zero effect on the COMPOSITION of the board. Of course it will affect how the board operates in the future, but it will do so indiscriminately. Voting no will no more punish the "takers" (and as an aside, I guess I'd like to know, specifically, who you think that is) than voting yes will reward them. If you want to punish members who you think have represented you poorly, then don't vote for them. That is how you show you haven't forgotten.

My vote on the referendum doesn't mean I'm "forgetting" or "remembering" what has transpired, it simply a vote on the referendum.

Don't feel silly, Brian, but do be specific and leave the silliness to the professionals.

Let me specify:

The takers are government workers, or any employee whose efforts are paid for with public dollars. The makers are the private sector workers whose wages and other economic activities are taxed to pay for the takers. Makers increase the size of the economic pie, the takers always cut out a slice.

Now, the takers in this case are the district employees. Some of them are covered with the 'unbreakable vow' given by our School Board. Others' employment contracts are due for renewal this year. These takers will, not without merit, demand an increase in their economic reward for their recent efforts.

If the coffers are relatively full, or moving in that direction, their negotiators can rightfully justify their request for invigorated economic enrichment. The net proceeds from this bond issue will further the impression that the district needn't expect concessions from these takers.

Result?

More for the takers. More from the makers. Same old same old.

I still think this will pass regardless.

So the Police Department and the Fire Department and the Armed Services are "takers"? That seems like a really, REALLY bad description.

From a purely financial standpoint, yes. Sorry to betray your emotions so coldly.

This is not a reflection on their service or personal contribution to society or the world. Those otherwise overwhelmingly valuable contributions, unfortunately, are what needs to be separated out when discussing pay issues when the coffers are empty.

I wish it weren't so. Economics can be so cruel at times.

So you don't mean "takers" in the pejorative sense? When people read your comments about the "takers" they should only assume you are referring to the method in which their salaries are paid, and nothing else?

I'll run that past the next Veteran I run into, and see how that flies. I'm sure he/she will understand.

You are correct. This is a financial matter and I am sticking to the issue at hand.

Brian, that last sentence of yours was among the most pathetic sentences I have read on this forum. If you are so attached to emotional arguments, perhaps you should be paid in emotional vouchers, rather than dollars, since actual real world finances don't mean much to you. Let me know what your creditors would think of that. I'm sure they will sympathize.

In the future, I suggest avoiding using emotion to counter argue matters of fact.

It's not emotion Tom, it's called sarcasm. I'm trying to point out how tenuous the idea that "takers" simply refers to the funding of ones paychecks. Try your argument out on virtually anyone, and see what they make of it.

I COULD get emotional if want to continue to take cracks at my character, but I think I can handle it.

And seriously, if that was the most pathetic sentence you've read on this forum, you really aren't paying attention.

Brian, have a <man hug>.

Not once did I impugn your character, so the lack of that should be easy for a strong guy like you to handle.

I didn't say that economics was a fuzzy happy issue.

Sadly, I have been paying attention. It would be much easier for your side if I didn't.

Well let's see, you called me single minded, blind to the consequences, unsympathetic to opposing views, and prone to self righteousness and emotional arguments. And that was in the last 10 minutes.

Now I can take SOME solace in that you accused pretty much everyone who disagrees with you with much of that as well, but I guess I don't want to be around when you actually do get to impugning my character.

"Well let's see, you called me single minded,"

No. The entire pro-referendum crowd is pretty much there with you.

"blind to the consequences,"

You only talk about the upside, Brian. Are there no downsides to this bond issue? Everything is all warm sunshine with it? You have no questions regarding this issue at all and are completely comfortable with it?

"unsympathetic to opposing views,"

I have conceded some pro-referendum issues. Name one substantial anti-bond issue point that you conceded.

"and prone to self righteousness and emotional arguments."

I've still focused on your arguments. You are the one trying to make it personal. I'm sure you're a fine citizen, worthy of a free beer courtesy of your truly at any Lemont establishment.

Your bond issue is going to pass, Brian. I think the small slice of the electorate that actually shows up to vote in this off year election will be the supporters of this referendum.

Almost forgot:

<man hug>

Mr. Finn, you are wrong about our legislator's involvement/comment. In an email dated Feb 8 to me, Senator Radogno said the following, which to me shows her and Durkin's concern about the REAL possibility...

"Please be assured that I am working very closely with the State Board of Education to do everything possible to prevent the need for a Financial Oversight Panel in Lemont 113A. Representative Jim Durkin and I have been on numerous conference calls with local officials and the State Board and will continue to be actively involved. I have also been more than happy to be a conduit for factual information when requested by constituenst and local officials and will continue to do so, which I think is crucial to any public campaign.

That said, I have a long standing policy that I do not publicy endorse or oppose local ballot initiatives. I have several dozen local bodies of government in my district, many of which have put referenda on a ballot. If I took a public position on one, I would be pressured to do the same throughout the rest of my Senate district.

I am fully aware of the adverse affects a Financial Oversight Panel would have on Lemont and will continue to work with all involved to determine the most prudent and effective way to get 113A back on track and the students of our community earning the education they deserve and taxpayers fund.

Thanks again for taking the time to write. "

Looks like you left a period out of the link, between tax and fizber. I got an error when I tried it. Try this one...
http://tax.fizber.com/

I was curious to see what a $300K home (Lemont's average) would pay in property taxes in surrounding villages. In Lemont it's $4110. In Lockport, it's $5850. In Homer Village it's $5100. In Downers Grove it's $4620. In Darien it's $5250.

Looks like we are getting a pretty good deal here in Lemont. I am with Ms. Howell - voluntarily increasing our taxes by $360 seems safer than crossing our fingers that the state won't raise us up to what surrounding communities are paying.

Lemont is behind all those communities and needs to be a the forefront of taxation.

Clearly a mere $360 is nowhere near enough to get Lemont into the big leagues of government spending, particularly if its for the the administrators and teachers and the pension and health & welfare funds...er...children.

Money is no object. So instead of $360 for a pitifully small increase in spending, let's go for the real gusto and have a $720 tax hike, that puts us in with the more compassionate communities with the take then going to a much more respectable $4830.

Hmm. That would put Lemont ahead of Downers Grove, but still lag behind Darien. Completely unfair. Why should our government workers...er...kids do with less? So instead of that lame proposal above, lets go for three times that amount: a $1080 increase. That's a measly $3 per day. That would put Lemont right there at a much more real estate marketable $5190, still less than class leader Darien, but, heck, this is only for a $300K house. We can pull much more from the more palacial estates...and, as the owners are probably rich folks, they can afford it.

Let's do it!

100% sarcasm, sir.

Raising taxes in a recession makes no sense whatsoever.

Tell that to all the Lemonters who are still without a job. Tell that to the Lemonters who have just about forgotten what overtime is. Tell that to the Lemonters who still don't get 40 hours a week on their paycheck.

Oh yes, I'm sure the recession ended for the tenured academics who remain insulated by outrageous tuition hikes at our universities. For those on the front line, it remains.

So Tom, what is your solution? And why do you think academics are insulated by outrageous tuition hikes. My mother is tenured professor and she doesn't make much money a year. And what does that have to do with sd113a? Why do you demonize our local teachers for possessing Masters Degrees? Don't you want our children to be taught by well-qualified people? I would think, to eventually compete in a global market, one would want to have the highest quality education possible. Would you rather teachers simply posses a GED? Or less? What do you propose?

Well, we all know what yours is: Hike taxes in a weak (ok, pathetic) economy.

I demonize only those who feed at the public trough, demanding that those who pay for it pay more so they can feed more. It is relevant because the academics who are claiming the recession is over aren't the ones whose hours and pay have been cut, if they have a job at all. If you think the economy is humming along now, just wait for $5 gasoline. Watch the businesses close up shop. Watch that charming unemployment figure.

I want the highest quality education we can possibly afford, given the cash the district receives to pay for it.

If you want the best education possible, then tougher personal choices have to be made and the public route might not be the best option for you.

This thing will pass. Then the fun begins.

Jen, your sacrasm is dreamy, much better than mine. Lovely liberal bullet points & all. Ok, I'll give 'er a shot...

The greatest cost to the district is its employment costs. They need to be brought in line.

How so? You say.

Teacher contracts specifying up to $70K per year, plus benefits, for a nine month school year.

Administrators getting small business CEO wages, plus car, plus mileage, plus expenses.

He's also equipped with an expensive assistant super, all for a district with a whopping three schools.

No wonder we can't afford to hire more.

As far as the country goes, we gave up our leadership role when we decided that it was better to make nothing in this country and import it all from everywhere else. The economy still looked healthy, if you didn't look too close. A corresponding government industrial complex grew in symbiosis with the ever heated importation economy, financed with borrowed, imported money.

After many decades of factory closures and manufacturers becoming 'lean' importers, the result is the 'you-want-fries-wit-dat' economy that we now watch in dismay. This has decimated employment and with it, the tax base. Now, those lucky enough to remain employed must be taxed at ever increasing rates to support the government industrial complex. The bill is due and the government industrial complex demands to be fed, regardless of the economic situation.

It needs to be reduced to bring it in line with the rest of the economy.

Aww. You're cute, Gar-bear! At least you conceded the possibility that I have a heart.

However...nice try. I refuse to go gently and simply get out of your way.

I understand my questions are, well, rather inconvenient for you. I will continue to press them, even, as I believe it will, this bond issue passes muster with a majority of the minority that will vote on election day.

The the real fun will begin.

Is this fun for you?

I'm sure this disagreement is not terribly fun for you. After all, your compensation package is at risk here.

Jen, you are hilarious. Maybe you'd like a beer or two on yours truly. Fair enough. You must be worthy and leave the 'living wage' bullet points at the door. I mean, since when is $70K a year a living wage? If that were so, then those beers would be about $20 apiece.

This is usually ignored by most liberals, so pay attention:

The current economic circumstances dictate what can be expended by tax supported entities. The expenditures must not exceed those cash inputs. A public employee living wage or any wage floor helps those fortunate enough to receive one, that's for sure. When tax receipts cannot cover that level of compensation, then that compensation must be reduced, even if that employee, by position, experience, education, or other tangible and intangible qualities, would otherwise warrant no reduction whatsoever.

Only after reductions are achieved should the taxpayers be asked for more.

All public sector employees are worth every dollar that their agency can afford to pay them. They ought not ask for more than that. That is not realistic or fair to those who have to pay for it.

Again, as a confirmed 'bore' (thanks, Gar-bear!) or 'libertarian' or 'conservative' or erstwhile pain in the patookus, my opinion is every bit as worthless as all the others.

Jennifer, better being hilarious than a joke. Did I see something from above where Tom thought there were only three schools in District 113a...count again.

Tom, teachers work beyond 9 months..again how little you really know.

The schools were closed last summer, Sue.

Oops. Four schools. Sorry about that.

That was a beerworthy correction.

I notice that you are bored by anyone who disagrees with you.

Actually, the future concerns me a great deal. 113a has less of a future because of the past errors in judgment of those in charge. Now the bill is due. No more juice loans from the banks, they won't bite. A bond issue is the only way out. It will pass.

America has less of a future because of all the deficit spending all over the place. I notice that anyone who tries to change this direction is heavily demonized and reminded of just how short sighted and heartless and cruel they are. Never mind those on the receiving end who just can't give anything up, because they're worth it whether the money is there to pay for it or not, those are the saints, the untouchables, the selfless unassailables. Affordability be damned.

Social Security will not be there in the future. That's another promise that can't be kept.

Sad, really.

Another attempt to get me to leave, Sue?

After all, your raises for the next three years are on the line, aren't they?

We cannot tolerate dissent.

No, Tom, to let you know you need help, really. I am not asking for a raise , Tom.

Sad to say, the district can't afford you one. Not now.

Actually, it can't afford what it's paying you currently.

I'm glad we have you, Dr. Sue, ready to diagnose anyone who disagrees with you as insane. Cute.

How hypocritical of you to want me to become your Doc, but won't afford me my Master's. Insane, did I say that? What makes you think I thought you needed help with sanity? I surely only thought of your perspective on the referendum.

No. Jen-nifer. Not at all. Don't be ridiculous. I am only advocating that total compensation costs be adjusted, at this point in time, to remain at a more affordable level. That's all.

That is the only viable long-term solution. The bond issue is a nice band-aid, though an expensive one. Do you have an alternative?

It's gonna pass.

Tom, once again, some things are so simple. yet you seem to find someone hiding behind every comment. My name is Jennifer. Not Jen, not Jen-nifer. Very simple, really, if you just listen to the facts. Oh, wait, you're not very good at that now are you?

Ok. Since you have all the facts, I'd love some:

Is the $20 million the gross or the net proceeds of this bond issue?

What is the projected annual debt service costs per year for this bond issue?

Conversely what are the projected annual tax receipts from this bond issue?

What fees are going to be incurred in the process of getting this bond issue to market?

Were there three bids for the contract to market and sell these bonds? Who were those bidders?

Do we have any assurance that the bond proceeds will not displace funds already earmarked in one part of the ledger into another?

Will the district be in better or worse financial condition at the end of this debt excursion?

These are not available on the website. Only the selling points are. Give me some facts, please.

There needs to be a reduction in employee costs in order to prevent such closure. It's the largest part of the budget. It needs to drop.

Is there an industry, business, or faction whose largest percentage of budget isn't employee cost?

Old quarry was shut up tighter than my wallet at Panera Bread. I heard lost of comments about that last year.

Cutbacks, they said.

And yet, you still don't know the facts?

Sue, the germane fact is the near bankruptcy of the district and the kids losing everything just so that the spending in the untouchable areas can continue.

This thing is going to pass. It will not solve everything, but it will pass.

The total employment costs must come down, Sue. This is not an argument over the dedication and work ethic of the teaching staff.

Bravo, Gary.

Oh, come on. What is it with you apologists for government spending? There can never be any reduction in expenditure without this hyperbole, this wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I only advocate a small wage reduction and/or an increase in copays or lifetime benefits, plus the replacement of the defined benefit pension plan with something more affordable to the district. Administrative personnel need also be under the same constraints, with a small headcount reduction in that area.

It's not huge, but the savings will add up quickly and will make the proceeds from this bond issue go so much farther.

So what is fair....you seem to suggest without research...Make me an offer.

Tom, either is a dollar a day out of your pocket to pass this referendum to support the children of Lemont.

I'm sure we could come to an agreement. Just need to keep talking and keep all options on the table.

Again, all talk and no answers...? Everything I knew you'd be.

Good night. Even Lucifer had a heart.

Sue. I have at least made suggestions.

What is your answer to this long term problem?

Aww, you're cute, Jen. <hugs>

I love the unbridled character assassination hurled in my direction that I have read on this page today. It speaks volumes about those who wrote it.

I know. How dare anyone dissent. Debate must be crushed. Assault the messenger if you can't debate the issues. Sad, really.

I have not assaulted anyone's character on this page. I assault arguments, yes. I speak only about the financial issues and my arguments on that level are hard to tear down. I understand that.

However, I don't try and shut people up because they have another viewpoint.

Bravo, Gary.

That it definietly beerworthy.

I'm sure you are. I have a strong dislike for the untouchability of the public sector. This group is somehow not to be afflicted by the tides of financial cycles, they only are to grow. That's all.

I'm not being mean or vindictive in any way. I see every agency in Lemont enduring this now. The Park District, even the public works department. Those guys and gals worked their collective patookus off when feet of snow snow piled up all over town and we can't pay 'em.

That stinks, but it's indicative of the current state of affairs. If there's anything I hate, that is it.

Surprised?

I already asked, Sue. They did not have the answers to those questions.

I was impressed with the presentation. Really I was. It did much to reduce my opposition to this referendum. The sticking point was the need to slow the growth in employee costs. Do you have any idea how to do that?

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

Nice.

I know, anyone who challenges the established order is nuts.

Right.

Gee Whiz Tom, if there is anyone who challenges the system, it is I. But your "pitiful me" routine is tired. And old. And quite frankly, I'm sure you have very good intentions but there is the idea of getting more bees with honey. It has nothing to do with "challenging the establishment" but has everything to do with your delivery.

How would you reduce those costs?

Should they not be looked at at all?

I draw the line at beers. I will not 'take one for the team', as it were.

I dunno about that. Past votes have pretty much followed that pattern. I wonder what would be different if any of them passed. The administration's past behavior at their former employers indicates that the spending would have even blown past that in the quest for more.

All kidding and cuteness aside, the district is in a real pickle right now. No denying this. Yes the budget is balanced. I wonder how close to budget the expenses and revenues have been tracking.

I still think that folks are stirred up enough so that the majority of the minority who vote will vote yes.