District 113A Policy Committee Debates Use of Proposed Referendum Funds

Financial priorities and transparency were under the microscope Monday night as school board members in met to discuss spending policies for the proposed $20 million working cash bond referendum in April.

The special policy committee was by District 113A Board President Lisa Wright last month in an effort to provide the public with more information and safeguards about the way the money would be spent should the referendum pass April 5. Board Secretary Andreas Taylor and Board Member Sue Murphy were appointed by Wright to participate in the policy process.

The first draft of the policies were put together by Murphy, Taylor, District 113A Superintendent Tim Ricker and advisers from PMA Financial, and were then brought before the district's regular policy committee, in which School Board Members John Wood and Janet Hughes are both members.

Since the drafted policies are considered "working documents," they were not made available to the public. Committee members, however, openly discussed their thoughts and concerns on the six proposed policies and the corresponding resolution.

Among the topics of concern was whether the bonds would be used strictly for educational purposes, or whether the board would reserve the right to use the money for the operating fund, which includes transportation.

"The decision the board has to make is if they want all that money for the education fund, or if some of it can be allocated for things like building maintenance, custodial staff and transportation," Ricker said.

The first draft of the policy said the bonds could only be used for education expenses, Ricker said. However, Wood raised concerns about the district's current operating budget. Last March, the school board eliminated 12 maintenance and custodial positions, placing additional pressure on the small staff remaining in each school.

"I'm personally concerned about the custodial and maintenance support," Wood said. "I think as a district we need to address that."

Ricker said he and the committee considered several factors in drafting the policies, including comments made by board members at past meetings and input from the community. He also cited a to the Board of Education and Patch.

"The indication from that letter was that parents want to see the money go toward teachers and the classroom, so the policy was drafted to reflect that," Ricker said.

Murphy said she believes any additional funding received through referendum should be used toward reducing classroom sizes, which would required the board "to draw some lines."

"If we went over everything we would like to improve, we would need a lot more money," she said. "Right now, we're focusing on class size."

The idea to draft spending policies for the district was discussed at the special referendum meeting Jan. 18 when the board voted to place the proposed $20 million working cash bond referendum on the ballot for the April 5 consolidated election.

"By putting together these policies, the board is holding itself accountable to the public by putting down in writing where the money can and cannot go should a referendum pass," Ricker said.

If the referendum were to be approved by Lemont voters, PMA advisers recommend that the district set aside approximately $8 million for its working cash fund to use toward repayment of outstanding TAWs and other operational expenses. The board would be able to use an estimated $2.4 million each year over five years to begin restoring programs and teachers, according to PMA representative Don Weber.

The only specific suggestion offered by Hughes was that the draft be amended to include a policy requiring the termination of any employee or board member who violates the adopted resolution. She called her suggestion "accountability in action."

"I think it's just lip service," Hughes said of the drafted policy. "I think you're trying to tell the voters what they want to hear so they vote for your referendum. You talk about accountability, but I don't see any of that here."

Hughes also took issue with the appointment of Taylor and Murphy to the special policy committee, as well as the draft not being available to the public.

"Contrary to public perception, the board president can appoint committees at any time as she sees fit," Ricker said. "Committees serve as function of the board, and do not need to include members of the community."

Per state law, the policy drafts are classified as "working documents" and are not available to the public until they are reviewed by the district's attorneys, Ricker said. Until then, the documents are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The policy committee tentatively approved the the drafts to be brought to the Board of Education during the Feb. 14 meeting. The documents will be available to the public once the meeting agenda is posted online later this week, Ricker said.