I hear you and I also hear those who rightly complain that the student fees are not itemized; they should have been and will be, thanks to the current Board. We expect a full report in December, which we will publicize in the H-A, the D64 website, this blog, Facebook, and smoke signals around town.

We also decided that we will indeed come after the remaining parents of the 450 or so students whose fees from 13-14 are outstanding. The total is now down to $103k, due to the attention being paid to the problem and to letters going out to parents. We hope the remaining amount is captured prior to mid-January, at which time we WILL send those accounts to a collection agency and we WILL instruct that agency to report the accounts to credit agencies. Furthermore, we think we may have found a near fool-proof method of recouping the fees on time starting in 14-15.

Once this is wrapped up, we can get back to bigger and better things.

Kudos to Dr. Borrelli for bringing this issue to the foreground, and to the rest of the Board, who appeared to be unified about it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’re glad this has been attended to, Dr. P., really we are. But if those parents didn’t “boycott” and if Ms. Wasisnski of the H-A didn’t write about it, would it have ever come to the public’s attention and been addressed? Has the District’s finance person, Ms. Allard, been asleep at the wheel on this?

This reminds us of the City of Park Ridge letting $600K+ of parking tickets and other citations go uncollected until Alison Stutts took over as Finance Director and blew the whistle on it. Who blew the whistle on this…other than the parents?

Bingo!!! The issue of itemizing (which everyone now is acting as if it is a “no brainer”) was never identified in advanced by anyone associated with the school….admin, board or otherwise. Same goes for the mounting unpaid fees. It does not appear they were even on the radar until the story hit the press.

Don’t strain your arm patting yourself (and the rest of the board) on the back.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Itemizing bills IS a “no brainer” to most of the real world; but, obviously, not to those highly-paid administrators at D-64.

If they can’t even get a “no brainer” right, is it any wonder that they can’t figure out: (a) that standardized test scores matter; and (b) reasonable ways to improve them?

Actually, it was on the Board’s radar six months ago when I started. I don’t know who wins the contest of who found it first, but the “boycotting” certainly isn’t what has motivated us since then.

But frankly, I don’t think it’s so bad that an issue like this has been initiated or spurred on by citizens. Good for them for bringing it to our attention (or increasing our attention to it or lighting a fire under the collective butts of the administration and board). I think far MORE would get done if the public pushed and poked and prodded. If far more citizens complained about merely decent standardized test scores (and overpaying for them), it would be easier for those of us who DO care about that to convince other board members to pay attention to it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, Dr. P., but the reason we elect people like you to the school board is so citizens like us don’t have to show up at every meeting and keep an eagle eye on the administrators and teachers.

You can say all you want about these unitemized, uncollected fees being “on the board’s radar six months ago,” but until the H-A wrote about the “boycott” they weren’t on THE PUBLIC’s “radar” – which is what really matters – presumably because D-64’s propaganda minister, Bernadette Tramm, wasn’t about to issue press releases about anything that doesn’t portray the District in glowing terms.

Over the years we have written repeatedly about the “Culture of Secrecy” that all these governmental bodies and their bureaucrats wallow in. So if you and Borrelli (and any of the remaining bobbleheads) want The Public to know about something at the District that isn’t all seashells and balloons, YOU’RE going to have to publicize it – because B. Tramm and the bureaucrats won’t.

And while we have your attention, can you tell us if the current PREA contract is even on the District’s website; and, if so, how we go about finding it?

I agree wholeheartedly that the dialogue with the community and stakeholders/taxpayers needs to be fundamentally improved. I have witnessed the pattern of reporting good news and hiding the not so good. The question is which channels of communication do we use to affect public opinion and skirt around whatever foot-dragging and/or obfuscation might be in our way? I’m open to suggestions.

Please don’t misconstrue what I mean by my previous comment. I don’t mean to suggest that it’s the citizenry and not the board and administration who should be most diligent in rooting out error, corruption, or any other problem. You are right; that is our charge. But when the public finds something they find errant and creates a swell of public opinion, it has a positive effect and I don’t begrudge them that. Again, good for them.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The first thing you can do is cut the bureaucrat-ese terms like “dialogue with the community and stakeholders/taxpayers” and start talking plain English. Why don’t you give “TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH!” a try?

And, once again, can you tell us where we can find the current PREA contract on the D-64 website?

Oh, and how about publishing the names of all those deadbeats who haven’t been paying their fees but still sending their kids to school using the books and materials they still haven’t paid for? Or will we have to FOIA those?

While not a fan of Arne Duncan nor Common Core, I think he is on to something regarding his off the cuff remark regarding “suburban” (parents) and their children’s education.

Here, some parents move to “self-elite” Park Ridge (or sneak into the Niles side of D64 for cheaper taxes), pop out of a few kids and wait for the “village” to pay for and raise their children. They assume their school is one of the best. They assume a bus will pick up their kids and drop them off. They assume specialized lunch lady will supervise them while they eat their organic food. They assume the best of technology should be given away. They believe their beloved teacher should be paid HIGHER than the average household income in Park Ridge. They also assume they can pick out their teachers.

They also expect other people to pay for it because “it’s for the children.” Govt sucks at delivering services, so why do we put this blind trust into our schools. I know I wouldn’t.

In the age of auto-raises, ridiculous pensions and administrators that get paid like surgeons, that model is broken.

If education is to become a top priority, parents have to be all-in. Could you imagine how well informed parents would be if they paid even 25% of their children’s education? They’d be at board meetings. Board elections would turn out more than 35%. Parents would demand these leading schools they assume they are getting. However, as a society, we continue to rather placate parents and unions instead forcing real change.

Parents-taxpayers are sleeping, it’s not smart to poke a bear for $250. Heck, you pay more one of your iPhone smartphone plans a year.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Excellent points!

I’ll find out where we can get the PREA contract and where it can be published.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks, Dr. P. But we hope you realize just how FUBARed the D-64 administration is when: (a) YOU, a school board member, have to play Sherlock Holmes on something this basic, because (b) members of the general public can’t seem to find the contract on the District’s website, despite (c) that contract having been adopted OVER A YEAR AGO!

Seriously, how can the D-64 administration be so screwed up that it can’t even get basic things like posting the current PREA contract, sending out itemized statemewnts, and collecting fees, right?

I love how everyone is patting themselves on their backs here…..yay, its fixed…..

Pathetic. This has been going on for years. I know parents that have not paid for their kids going on 5 years now. They also were requesting to know where exactly the money was going.

On another note just recently a group of parents contacted the ACLU and from what I understand they are taking interest in it. They have challenged fees for public schools and won in other states, actually I think that case has never lost. I can see that happening here as well. If the district would of handled this properly years ago we would not be here.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A couple of weeks ago at the Better Gov’t Assn’s annual luncheon, former U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald (the finest U.S. Attorney Illinois has had in at least 40 years) pointedly noted how corruption has flourished in Chicago and Illinois because a lot of people know about it but don’t say or do anything about it.

He was talking about people like you.

“he was talking about people like you”

I don’t know what you mean by this?

EDITOR’S NOTE: “I know parents that have not paid for their kids going on 5 years now.”

The above info I posted just came to my attention. Probably about 6 weeks ago, when some parents said the dist sent out notices of non-payment. Stand outside any school when it gets out and there is always a flavor of the day topic. Would I post the name of a parent that stated that they have never paid the fees? No, I don’t know the legal issues at stake. Do like you said and FOIA it.
That actually would get the payments in.

PREA Contract has been posted on the website since its adoption by the BOE.

http://www.d64.org/subsite/dist/page/financial-data-current-987

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s not that we don’t believe you – whoever you are – but…we don’t believe you. Here’s why:

1. We’ve checked the website on and off over the past year without being able to find it, despite searching the website high and low.

2. We’ve been asking about how to find it in a variety of ways through a variety of sources, directly and indirectly (through Board members, parents and even one teacher), for the past year without success.

3. As recently as this morning a D-64 Board member, whom we consider one of only two non-“bobbleheads” on that Board, couldn’t offer any help or direction.

4. Going through each of the website’s main pull-down tabs (“District,” “Schools,” “Departments,” “Parents/Community,” “Staff,” “Board of Education” and “Contact Info”) fails to disclose any “Financial Data – Current” page, which is the page to which your link took us; and we could not back-track from that page to figure out how to get there.

Of course, it’s always possible D-64’s propaganda minister, Bernadette Tramm, has had it buried in there for the past year in a variation on the “hiding in plain sight” strategy. But that’s arguably even more devious and deceitful than not having it there at all.

Then again, coming from D-64, why should we be surprised.

Ya do have to at least admire that they are real “deadbeats, or scofflaws, or mooches, or parasites”.

These days most of the folks in these categories get themselves a lawyer and/or a senator and have an exemption written in or carved out of the tax code just for them. This way they don’t get the label but it is the same thing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t “admire” any deadbeats, etc.

Unfortunately, the sheeple keep on voting for those stupid/dishonest/corrupt legislators – who, in Illinois, are little more than a bunch of “D” pimples on Madigan’s Derriere.

@9:21, Your generalizations about D64 parents are beyond insulting. I don’t know a single parent or neighbor who thinks that way. I’m guessing the picture you paint with such a broad brush comes straight from your addled imagination. But if you do actually know anyone like you describe, they are most certainly in the minority. And I’m guessing they’re the ones not paying the fees. I guess I just verified their existence.

In any case, I pay my D64 fees in good faith. I don’t think they are too high and — gasp– I trust the money is going where it’s needed most. I do agree that the scofflaws need to be called out. I once lived in a small town where residents had been routinely delinquent on trash pickup fees. Once the town started publishing the names of those who hadn’t paid, the collection problem all but disappeared.

@9:40 And why is it that a school board member hasn’t yet taken it upon himself to familiarize himself with a document that’s critical to his position? He’s a master at political posturing, especially in an online environment, but the fact that he has no clue where the current contract can be found makes me wonder about his true agenda.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There’s nothing “critical to [Dr. Paterno’s] position” in the PREA contract because everything in there already is a done deal, negotiated in secret by the PREA, Heyde and former one-term Board member/union lawyer Pat Fioretto, and agreed to by the Board before Paterno was even elected.

We may not be sure what Paterno’s “agenda” is, but we have clear and convincing proof of Heyde’s and Fioretto’s agenda in the form of the four-year PREA contract with a new crop of guaranteed non performance-based raises.

Sorry PD. I have to disagree, or at least partially disagree.

I guess technically one could make a case that it is not “critical to his position”, but it would seem to me that a person who decides to run for the board would or should have at least some familiarity with the prior contract. I would further hope that once a person wins the race and is now on the board they might take some time and familiarize themselves with what existing agreements are currently in place (to be clear I am not suggesting they be committed to memory).

If a board member takes the position he has taken in one of his replies, that we are overpaying for merely decent test scores, they should make it a point to be familiar with the document that describes contractually what we are paying them.

To take a point you made above, we elect board members so we do not have to be familiar with every line of these agreements.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Disagree away, but knowledge of any terms of the PREA contract are virtually irrelevant to anything the current Board members will be doing for the next three years the contract is running.

Given the District’s chronically mediocre test scores, he could reasonably conclude the teachers are overpaid simply by knowing that: (a) the starting salary for somebody right out of college last year (year 1 of the new contract) was $45,780, and will be $48,582 in the last/fourth year of the contract; (b) by year four, last year’s rookie hire will be knocking down a minimum of $54,027, a guaranteed 18% non merit-based raise over 4 years; and (c) $54,027 for approximately 8 months of actual work days/year annualizes out to $81,000.

Oh, yeah…and any 8-month/year teacher with a masters (apparently even if it is unrelated to anything he/she teaches) and 20 years experience will be earning a minimum of $92,802 in Year 4, or just a shade under $140,000 annualized.

WITH a constitutionally-guaranteed defined benefit pension.

Check here http://iirc.niu.edu/Classic/District.aspx?districtid=05016064004 Park Ridge School Distract
did not meet AYP requirements for this year.Also Compare District 36,28,34 with 64 and see how Park Ridge test scores compare to them.We are lower then all of them yet are fees are the highest.http://iirc.niu.edu/Default.aspx..Also Operational spending for district 64 is one of the highest and again Test scores don’t reflect this higher spending.I will gladly pay any higher fees but show me the results in the test scores.The property taxes are through the roof and The anti -Business rhetoric out of this town does nothing to attract business which would help to offset them.Please check the links provided and read about ours and all school districts.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What “anti-Business rhetoric” – the kind that drove away Whole Foods? What are your ideas for attracting the kind of businesses that “would help to offset” residential property taxes?

Does the school board send these accounts to a collection agency? If they don’t, they should.

I ran across this
http://www.aclusocal.org/aclu-california-affiliates-announce-major-settlement-in-school-fees-case/

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sounds like a great day for the freeloaders/parasites. And way to go, Cali! No wonder you’re only slightly less broke than Silly Noise.

Frankly, we’d love to see some “means” testing: If you think you’re too poor to pay the fees, file for an exemption and provide a sworn financial statement and the last three years of income tax returns. The “needy” get the subsidy, the “greedy” don’t.

How ’bout it, anonymous?

@2:26, please, now you want to use test scores as an excuse not to pay fees, or only pay a certain amount? PLEASE. Keep rationalizing. Or just admit you don’t want to pay anything beyond your taxes.

I pay taxes, I pay school fees. Do I think scores could be higher? Perhaps. Although to be honest my kids scores have always been above average. Regardless, some parents can’t just decide not to pay because they’ve deemed the price tag too high.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, a classic shameless v. spineless battle – and the shameless, as usual, are winning.

Hey, maybe we could take the unpaid fees out of the top administrators’ pay for their aggravated mopery with intent to gawk on this issue.

Want to fix this and get some major attention?
How about a referendum to pass 25% of per child costs onto the users of D64 and DIRECTLY rebate the taxpayers?

Then, each year if there is an increase it’s shared equally?

If not constitutional, then “rebate” by exemption back to families who don’t use the system (Kids or no kids). However, if people feel that isn’t fair they do not have to apply for the exemption.

Let’s bet we’d have about a 90% turnout from D64 families to cry poor. Imagine the SUV line sitting idle waiting to vote.

And 226pm is correct that we feel the pain more due to lack of business here. That’s just a fact. Isn’t there an anti-business sign ordinance about to be rammed through?
Hey, if we play the “results” card (as we should) then Park Ridge fails at attracting business.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You probably would run into a constitutionality argument unless it was “means” tested rather than an across-the-board 25% charge. And if the “charge” piece doesn’t pass constitutional muster, the idea’s DOA because you never get to the point of “rebates.”

If Park Ridge “fails” at attracting business, explain Whole Foods? Or chain restaurants like Houlihan’s, Jason’s, Chipotle, Five Guys and Jersey Mike’s? Or tell us what business(es) you want in Park Ridge, whey it/they would actually want to come here, and where you would put it/them?

Re:PREA Contract…
http://www.d64.org/Departments/Business Services/Financial Data-Current

EDITOR’S NOTE: See Editor’s Note to 11.19 @ 10:59 AM

Link to survey about quality of District 64 website:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5QQJ8DS

Link is also currently available through the District home page at http://www.d64.org/

District 207 does break out the fees for each textbook and other elements/tools. The cost feels awfully high but based on your analysis I realize I’m getting a good deal as a parent. The system does not hold if everybody refuses to pay taxes for elements they don’t like in the tax bill. Our system provides for electing people who have an overt platform of supporting A over B, and you vote for the candidate whose preferences you agree with. Taxpayers have changed a longstanding monologue to a dialogue, but that doesn’t mean the whole system needs to be tossed out. We need to elect people who will hold ALL the various constituencies accountable, not just the ones who can’t pay for costly lobbyists. You may not want to hear it but school employees observe that more kids than anyone would ever expect are qualifying for free lunches in D64. Lots of folks are living lives of quiet desperation. They have to pay their bills to the school district, however, just as they have to pay their other fixed expenses. District 64, bring on the itemized bills as 207 routinely does, and get collection agencies involved. Those who truly need a break can qualify for one, but District 64 (like the City) has to do its job and assiduously seek the monies owed. At the same time, the school board and the voters have to continue to question why stuff costs what it does, and are we getting our money’s worth, so that whatever the costs are, they represent a reasonable value for the taxpayer and provide a reasonable living for the employees who do the job right. This country is great at doing one or the other; how about we try to do both at once for a change?

“We need to elect people who will hold ALL the various constituencies accountable, not just the ones who can’t pay for costly lobbyists”.

This is sooooo true!! The problem is that the majority of people (not all) do not want this to happen. The things that do not find of value they want gone through with a fine tooth comb. Get them!!! Heads will roll!! But when it comes to their own special little deal or loophole they don’t want anyone touching it!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve consistently advocated closing the loopholes and putting everybody on the same playing field. But then you get folks clamoring for exceptions for, e.g., those who can’t afford to pay for books and materials (even though they apparently can afford to live in Park Ridge), or old people on fixed incomes who “can’t afford” a $300/year Senior Center membership but who are sitting on a mortgage-free home worth $600K or more.

Geeze, suppose we require everybody with illiquid assets to pony up at the rate of their actual worth?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Why should somebody’s net worth determine what they are taxed or charged in fees by government? Is the millionaire charged more for a Quarter Pounder with cheese than the pauper at the same McDonald’s? Is the wear and tear on the Senior Center, or on the Community Center, or on the paved street running through the 100 block of Prospect measurably higher from the millionaire than from the pauper?

On the other hand, if you choose to hold illiquid assets, that’s your choice and your problem – because you can’t sit on $600K of home equity and at the same time claim to be “poor.”

A few observations in response to some of the above comments.

-D207 only recently provided a breakdown of the mandatory fees so I would not say it is something they routinely do. Back in the fall of 2010 the mandatory D207 fee was $50 with no explanation given. When I asked for an explanation at book sales check out-no one on staff at MS could tell me what the $50 covered.

In the fall of 2013, the mandatory fee for a freshman was a bit over $130 and total fees were $730. But at least detail of the $130 was provided. (If the D64 parents don’t like paying $230 per student wait until they get to D207.)

-D64 pays a business manager (Allard) $207,984 including salary, bonus(!?) and benefits. There is no reason to send uncollected fees to a collection agency with such high priced help on staff.

In addition, the supt. makes $248,507(!) all in. The highly paid administrative staff of D64 should be able to figure out how to collect unpaid fees without having to pay some outside agency to do their job.

-The D64 website provides information on teacher salaries and benefits. In reviewing the list, 144 teachers are paid in excess of $100,000/year which includes salary and benefits. The highest paid teacher on the list was at $140,847 with salary and benefits. For a job that is not for 52 weeks per year. For a job where you essentially cannot get fired. For a job that rewards you not only with a private sector level salary but with a pension guaranteed to increase 3% per year compounded in retirement.

-It appears from the information on the website that D64 expects to collect just over $63,100,000 in levied taxes in the 2013/2014 budget. The district also expects to receive about $5,400,000 in federal and state aid. And yet this-along with some interest income and misc other revenue-is not enough to provide educational services to the approximately 4300 D64 students. So the district will assess $982,000 in fees from parents who are already paying property taxes because D64 cannot figure out how to provide an education from more than $63 million in levied taxes and $5.4 million in federal and state aid.

-Perhaps this may be one of the reasons that parents are currently boycotting paying fees. We have a supt. making nearly $250,000 per year, 144 of the teachers making over $100,000 for less than 52 weeks of work, 17 admin staff in total making over $100,000 per year-who also received a bonus-for what. Yet district performance is nothing to write home about.

-PWD states repeatedly that those of us with children in the schools are receiving $14,500 of education per child each school year. But is the education worth that much? Who is forcing D64 to overpay teachers and administrators-particularly when the high salaries to not result in commensurate results? I have not checked salaries in other districts with better performing schools but are D64 salaries market rate?

-Yes fees should be paid if D64 cannot figure out how to balance the budget without them and after clearing out waste and inefficiencies. But what the fees are for should be clearly spelled out. It is pathetic that it took a boycott to get the districts attention to the issue.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If the best use of a $200,000+ chief financial officer is collecting overdue school fees, management is inept. And having a couple hundred thousand dollars in uncollected fees while students whose parents owe those fees continue to attend school confirms it.

That being said, parents who reap the benefits of that high-priced education have no – repeat, NO – justification for not paying those fees, especially since they’ve done nothing – repeat, NOTHING – to change the overspending and general mismanagement at D-64 up until now. So trying to rationalize their deadbeat status after the fact is nonsense.

But, yes, it is “pathetic.”

Not trying to justify anything. Just providing some additional information and perspective regarding D64.

But when a school district collects that much revenue from taxes and federal and state aid and cannot figure out how to provide a quality education for 4300 students without also having to charge $1,000,000 in fees to students and make students bring in Kleenex, Clorox wipes, dry erase markers and post its then there is a problem with the district’s overall management.

With a chief finance officer making that much money she should not have to face this non collection issue-save for a few nonpayers. But the reason for the non-collection was because she-nor her staff nor the highly paid supt. nor the school board-did not have the good sense to detail why the fees are $230 per student and what they cover. How can D64 pay a CFO type this kind of money when she apparently does not have the skills-recall she was quoted in the paper that she had no idea how to address the issue of nonpayers-that deserve a compensation package of over $200,000 per year.

And I would disagree that the parents have no justification for not paying the fees. Having sat in on school board meetings and PRPD meetings, parents and taxpayers really have no say with these boards. Try to speak up and you usually get are ignored if your comment does not fit into that board’s agenda. Speaking with your dollars is probably the only way to get the attention of these boards. And it appears to have worked. D64 is now addressing the issue of fees, details, and collection.

It would appear that D64 has more than a collection problem. And the taxpayers and the students are the ones paying for it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: So long as the voters keep on electing bobbleheads who rubber-stamp, without question, virtually everyting the PREA-directed administrators tell them, we will continue to overpay for underperformance.

You want to protest? Fine, send your kid to class WITHOUT the books, materials etc. And then beef that they don’t have those classroom necessities because you won’t pay for them because you haven’t been given an itemized bill.

But accepting services that you know you are being charged for and then not paying for them is, basically, theft. And people who do that are nothing but deadbeats, scofflaws and parasites.

“That being said, parents who reap the benefits of that high-priced education have no – repeat, NO – justification for not paying those fees, especially since they’ve done nothing – repeat, NOTHING – to change the overspending and general mismanagement at D-64 up until now. So trying to rationalize their deadbeat status after the fact is nonsense.”

YES. And anyone who tries to spin the “boycott” as somehow a noble move is ridiculous. Ridiculous!

Anon from last night at 11:56 pm should be applauded for bringing into this discussion the very specific numbers around the district’s budget – and where the money comes from. I agree that it seems like D 64 overspends.

My only other point is that Anon needs to realize that taxpayers without children in the schools are heavily subsidizing the education of the children who do go to school.

There should be lower taxes and higher fees. I’m willing to subsidize public education but parents of students who actually attend the schools must pay their fair share.

EDITOR’S NOTE: At some future date enlightened legislators might choose to at least consider making public education – the cost of which has increased exponentially over the last 30 years – more means-tested, so that people making $500K/year and paying $5K/year of property taxes to D-64 end up paying higher “fees,” or “tuition,” for their kids’ attendance in D-64 schools than the people making “only” $150K/year and paying the same $5K/year of property taxes.

Oh, wait, this is Illinois. “Enlightened legislators” is an oxymoron.

PWD, you have done a great job in communicating how the school board and school administrators should be accountable for the tax dollars and aid they receive (local,state,federal of $68.5 million Per Anon @ 11:56). You have also done a great job informing us about how poorly managed the school district is. So, how can I act on the information you have provided. I go to school board meetings and my concerns fall on deaf ears, I protest to school administrators and they just “circle the wagons.” How does one effect a change that you have pointed out needs to take place ? How can anyone be heard ? The system is broken. So some parents decide to “boycott” the assessd fees as a means of protest. An action that you may have been responsible for through the information you have provided. They act on your information and you call them deadbeats. Are they deadbeats, or are the looking for accountability which they deserve. From Time magazine, “if you wnat to change government you have to change the governed”

How is this for a proposal, next year 2014/2015, rather than allocate $ 1 million to salary increases and bonuses, take $1 million and pay the fees from the $68.5 million the schools get, thereby preventing our taxpaying citizens from being taxed twice, once from our assessments and once from the $260 fee.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you want to bring positive change to D-64, ORGANIZE…and not some half-baked “boycott” of deadbeats that basically shifts a private obligation (fees owed for kids’ books, etc.) onto the rest of the taxpayers.

Reach out to other parents AND non-parent taxpayers who feel the same way you do. Meet and strategize what your concerns are and what your message should be. Then show up en masse at meetings and only have your very best, most articulate and clear-headed individuals speak to the Board.

And Time magazine is right: “if you want to change government you have to change the governed” so that they demand more from their elected officials, and BETTER ELECTED OFFICIALS than those who simply rubber-stamp what the “experts” tell them. There are at least 4 of those on the current Board (there used to be 6, so it’s getting better), which means a majority of the Board remains nothing more than bobble-headed tools of the PREA and the administrators.

How is this for a counter-proposal: Next year (2014/2015), rather than allocate $ 1 million to salary increases and bonuses, tax $1 million LESS – thereby preventing the ranks of the “boycotting” deadbeats, scofflaws and parasites from expanding beyond the current number to include all parents of D-64 kids.

Can’t you folks just be satisfied – or even ecstatic! – that each of your kids is getting $14,000/year of education for the roughly $4,000/year in property taxes each of your households pays to D-64? Do you really have to nickle-and-dime the taxpayers for another $260/year?

“So some parents decide to ‘boycott’ the assessd fees as a means of protest.”

This was not a boycott but a massive rationalization by clueless parents who are too cheap to pay a couple hundred bucks. OK, I’ll concede that perhaps some truly can’t afford the fees. If that’s the case then I’m sure there’s a way to work with the district to come up with a payment plan or sliding scale. But not paying and calling it a boycott is silly.

If it had been a true boycott the parents in question would have been armed with facts, and as PWD pointed out, a strategy of sorts to effect change.

As far as I’m concerned, this incident makes the district look bad because we see how they’ve dropped the ball on collections and it makes parents look bad because we see how ill-informed they are. Rather than articulate real concerns about the big picture they simply seem petty and greedy about a relatively innocuous issue.

“petty and greedy”…..there is a lot of that on all sides of the teacher pay/pension issue.

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the teachers have the “petty and greedy” side pretty well locked up.

On a side note, are we going to see a post on what looks to be a new building in the commuter parking lot by the cleaners and Panino’s?

I guess I should not be bothered in that I normally walk to Uptown and when I do drive it is normally so early in the morning I can park anywhere. I also do not use the commuter lots. That said, do the Council/Mayor have any thoughts or plans on parking? If this project goes it would appear about 50+ spaces will be wacked. That lot appears to be full to capacity on weekdays when I walk by. where are those folks now going to park?

I am not saying to kill the development. I am just wondering what the plan might be for additional parking.

EDITOR’S NOTE: There is no plan…yet…because this was just recently announced. But if anybody has any ideas, send them in.

Really? The Mayor and Council are to worry, or worse-intervene, about the commuters in a lot to be sold/developed?? There are other options. Get up early and get a close spot. Or are they to develop a plan to secure transportation for you to the train to make up for the inconvenience you might suffer? Crimony…

EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe commuters will start parking in the Uptown underground lot, the City can start charging those all-day parkers, and it can raise a few more bucks against the $1 million/year projected deficits from that boondoggle.

8:30:

Love the use of the words “worry” and “intervene”!!! Very dramatic!!

Alas, I did not use those words. I asked if they had any “thoughts or plans”. Apparently you consider it to be too “Big Government” for our elected officials to even consider how developments might affect parking in uptown. While I do not use commuter parking, I believe the city charges an upfront fee for the ability to use those lots. If the reduce the total number of spaces available does that mean some people get that money back?

I have heard people on this blog bring up over taxing our infrastructure as an issue with some development. Now you think it is a over reach for elected officials to even consider parking. Crimony…..

EDITOR’S NOTE: Got any ideas?

I do not have any ideas at this point but then again I do not have all the information available to me.

To paraphrase one of your responses to Dr. Paterno, the reason we elect people like them to serve is so citizens like us don’t have to come up with plans for commuter parking and parking in Uptown.

So no I do not have a plan but I certainly think losing 50+ spaces and the parking situation in Uptown in general are things the council should consider and have some thoughts about.

EDITOR’S NOTE This doesn’t require any specialized knowledge of the Public Works Dept. budget, or the interest rate on the bonded debt, etc.

So when 50+ spaces disappear, the question is one anybody can answer: Where are there another 50+ spaces? You can see the same land the Council does.

I do not know what land the city owns. I do not know what the current capacity of available parking spaces is compared to number of commuter parkers. I do not know if there is a back log. I do not know what discussions, if any, have taken place in the past related to things like acquiring more land or building a garage on existing land.

As an example. There is a lot where the restaurant uses to be (I forget the name of the restaurant) on Cumberland across from the Walgreen’s and the car dealer. In theory this could be a lot and folks could walk down Touhy for 1 block and up the stairs on to the train platform without even crossing the street. I do not know who owns the land or what it would cost. There are probably things that might make this a bad idea (cost is one I am sure). But as you told Dr. P, I should not have to be looking at this. That is why we elected them.

All I am saying is our elected officials should be looking at this. You object to that???

EDITOR’S NOTE: You shouldn’t need to be looking at this stuff, but since you are we repeat: you can see the same vacant land that the City sees, and you are as capable as the City of judging whether it will hold 50+ vehicles.

If the City owned other land in the train station area that could accommodate parking, it probably would not be renting the Scharringhausen lot. And on at least two occasions over the past six years, the City rejected then-ald. Ryan’s suggestion that the City buy the Scharringhausen lot and build a parking deck there.

As we noted earlier, this announcement of development of the Scharringhausen lot was just announced, and it’s still not a done deal. So why are you so hot to trot about something that still appears to be a way’s off – are you looking to sell or lease some land to the City?

Baileys….sorry it took a bit to remember. Lack of coffee!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Bailey’s is a possible site, as is the Napleton property immediately west of Trader Joe’s. And there may be other sites as well, assuming the owners are willing to lease them to the City – because we doubt the City is in the real estate or parking business, nor should it be. It already owns a piece of the Uptown underground parking garage, and we’ve seen how well that’s working.

Hot to trot??? Good lord I read an article in the HA. That is when it came to my attention YESTERDAY. I read the article, thought about parking and asked a question on your blog. That question generated….guess what….a dialogue!!! Tada!! I answered a posters comments and also answered questions that you directly asked me.

This entire blog is built on you observing issues in PR and commenting on those issues and starting a dialogue.

So I ask a question and I am hot to trot?? Too funny!!

EDITOR’S NOTE: So let’s make sure we’ve got this right. You read an article in the H-A yesterday about the Scharringhausen lot being sold to a developer. And, although you “nomally walk to Uptown” and “can park anywhere” on those occasions you drive, you are suddenly so concerned about what the City’s going to do about replacing those 50+ spaces that you submit four comments about it in less than 24 hours – to a post that’s about D-64 – and then wonder why we say you’re “hot to trot” about it?

You’re right, that is “too funny.”

Why should taxpayers care if people have to find alternate parking to take the train? Wow, the downtown “class” really think they are more elite than the rest of us.

Also, is anyone alive and P&Z or in City Council? Why would 70 apartments be a good things for the city? Due to the failure of the city to attract retail, we are now stuck with increasing density, overpopulating our schools and stressing our infrastructure.

What is going on with our city????????? Priorities.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Who said taxpayers DO care about it?

It’s not 70 apartments, its 120 apartments. Were you at the last P&Z meeting to express your concerns? Will you be attending the upcoming City Council meeting when the Council will be voting on P&Z’s recommendation? Do you know that nobody from D-64 or D-207 showed up at the P&Z meeting to formally express concerns about “overpopulating our schools”?

If you don’t like going to meetings, make sure you call your alderman and let him know how you feel and why.

Actually I submitted one post…the original one. The other posts were replies. You asked me directly, “got any ideas?” It would have been rude not to answer.

I guess I should just have ignored the question so as not to appear hot to trot.

EDITOR’S NOTE: You lost that chance once you submitted your off-topic comment.

9:53:

Gee, you have a concern about the number of apartments?? That has nothing to do with D64 or parking! Therefore that’s an off-topic post. What make you so hot to trot on that issue?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Ah, the pot calling the kettle black. “Too funny!”

I was responding the parking commenters comment. AND YES, more density absolutely effects D64.

So many of the anti-development crowd (who are connected to the elected officials) rail against signs, but say nothing about 120 apartments?

120 apartments effect the character of the town in a negative way.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you’re right (and we don’t disagree), why isn’t D-64 showing up at these meetings and objecting? Could it be that D-64 has excess capacity for another 30-40-50+ students at Field and/or Washington schools?

Who (among the “anti-development crowd”) are staying silent about the 120 apartments?

How do you believe “120 apartments effect [sic] the character of the town in a negative way” – and does it do so more negatively than an empty office building?