Back on August 11 we published a post about the lack of transparency at…where else…Park Ridge-Niles School District 64.
Unofficial motto: “Don’t ask, cuz we won’t tell.”
We wrote about how D-64 Super!-intendent – because that’s pretty much how Board president Tony Borrelli and fellow Board members gushed about her when the Board gave her a $250,000+ contract extension and raise a few months ago – Laurie Heinz got herself a propaganda army she named the “Community Relations Council”(the “CRC”) for its avowed purpose of “strengthening relationships between the schools and local residents” in order to facilitate “a free-flowing dialogue and make sure everyone’s voice is heard.”
D-64 Minister of Disinformation Bernadette Tramm must have earned combat pay for that folderol.
Anybody who pays attention to what passes for representative government at D-64 knows by now that if there’s any “free-flowing dialogue” over there, it’s occurring only when the Board scurries off into its regular secretive closed session meetings, the proceedings of which it hides and keeps hidden from the public. For us ordinary Park Ridge residents/taxpayers, on the other hand, “free-flowing dialogue” most often consists of “talking to the hand” of Heinz and the Board collective.
According to Super!-Heinz, there were almost 40 applicants for the CRC, 19 of which were chosen and identified for the first time in a Sept. 16 posting on the D-64 website – one day after the CRC’s first meeting was held. Just chalk that timing up to D-64’s version of the “it’s-better-to-ask-for-forgiveness-than-permission” school of non-transparency and non-accountability.
And this being the D-64 Star Chamber, the only thing that has been revealed about the 19 successful applicants so far appears to be their names:
Marlene Arteta, Chris Bauer, Anne Camarano, Mariana Eguren-Cosma, Jeff Flyke, Kathleen Kornely, Terry Krahl, Dale Lasky, Robert Leurck, Maureen McGuire, Annette Miller, Sheri Roche, Philip Salemi, Rob Schoenstedt, Franco Scimeca, Paul Sheehan, Michael Shields, Jennifer Steurer and Kara Vormittag.
Because of D-64’s pro-secrecy/anti-transparency obsession, the qualifications of these 19 individuals (as well as the other 20 or so unsuccessful applicants) are nowhere to be found on the District’s website or in any of its Board materials for the past several Board meetings. That’s in stark and ugly contrast to the transparency of the process by which the Park Ridge City Council appoints residents to its boards and commissions – where every single application is posted on the City’s website days before those applicants are interviewed by the Mayor’s Advisory Council, in meetings open to the press and the public, prior to the recommendation of the selected applicants to the mayor and the full Council’s voting on them in meetings open to the press and the public.
We also can’t find anything in the D-64 Board’s minutes, agendas or meeting materials to suggest that the Board had any role whatsoever (even its typical rubber-stamping one) in the appointments of the favored 19. That suggests that the whole CRC is Heinz’s personal rodeo, although we assume Tramm was whispering sweet somethings into Heinz’s ear during the selection process.
Meanwhile, unsuccessful applicants like Watchdog reader/commentator George Korovilas were left scratching their heads about why they weren’t chosen, although only Korovilas publicly expressed his skepticism of the process and/or selection criteria in a comment to the 08.11.15 post on 09.15.15 @ 11:03 a.m.:
I think that maybe PUBDOG might be onto something with this NEW council created by the superintendent. I was offended that PUBDOG would suggest that only YES men would be put on this council, since I applied to be on it. I, along with others that believe there is good and bad with what the district is doing and had NO INTENTION of being YES people, have been denied a spot on this council. I hope that I am wrong but it looks like I might owe PUBDOG an apology for his original take on this Council.
Poor guy: he thought the selection process would be (to quote the late Jay McMullen, husband of then-Chicago mayor Jane Byrne) “on the legit.” As if anything of consequence D-64 does is ever totally “on the legit” or even totally out-in-the-open.
Korovalis clearly overlooked how his vocal beefing about the District’s ongoing refusal to provide D-64 parents with itemized billing statements of the expenses that comprise the annual student fees made him a persona non grata with Heinz and the Board. His chances of getting appointed to anything at D-64 more important than Franklin School copy machine volunteer are slim and none.
But back to the CRC.
It’s supposed to meet three times a year for a couple of hours at a crack, with these 19 members serving for two years.
And according to Heinz’s post on the D-64 website, CRC members “will be building their understanding of current District 64 issues” – as spoon-fed to them by Heinz and Tramm, of course – which those CRC members will, in turn, spoon-feed to the community. That’s the way non-transparent, non-accountable governmental bodies stay that way: by controlling the flow of information to that public.
And Heinz also wants CRC members to “provide her with feedback about what misconceptions the community might have about what is or isn’t happening” in D-64. [Emphasis ours.]
“Misconceptions” like the continuing underachievement of D-64’s students despite the ever-increasing costs to the taxpayers?
To read or post comments, click on title.
14 comments so far
Reminds me of Chief Kaminski’s police task force that became a public relations group for the chief in the name of giving the citizens a voice.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes it does.
You keep on complaining about how D-64 is non-transparent but you endorsed Borrelli twice. So you’re responsible for the problem you now condemn. Thanks a lot.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes we did. Chalk it up to the triumph of optimism over experience: we were hoping against hope that Borrelli might finally pull his head out of his keister once he was out from under Heyde’s magical spell. And he seemed like the best alternative to a PREA-recruited candidate Greg Bublitz and PREA-wannabe Tom Sotos.
But Borrelli appears to have become virtually a Heyde clone. Sad.
7:28:
You forgot to mention his endorsement of Dr. Paterno. How’s that one working out. Only slightly better than Borrelli.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No better than Scott Zimmerman and Vicki Lee, who also were elected in April 2013.
The best candidate in that 6-candidate (for 4 seats) field was Ben Seib, but we suspect he lost for the same sorry reason Shlomo Crandus might have in 2007.
I looked at the agendas for the last six months of D64 board meetings and there was a closed session for every one. Then I looked at the minutes and only Eggemann voted against most of them.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That sounds about right – one pro-transparency, pro-accountability member out of 7.
What troubles me is that we get no transparency and no accountability from D64 despite its taxing and spending roughly the same amount ($70 million) to educate 4,000 kids as the City of Park Ridge spends on an infrastructure and essential services for 37,000. Yet whenever you write something about the City (or the Park Ridge Library with its $5 million budget), you get many times more comments than when you write about D64.
It looks to me like D64 and its patrons are trying to keep flying below the taxpayers’ radar.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Exactly. And we understand that they discuss 80-90% non-closed matters during those closed sessions, which they justify by discussing 10-20% of legitimately closed matters. But unless and until at least one Board member is willing to stand up and say so (as then-ald. Dave Schmidt did about then-mayor Howard Frimark’s secret deal to have the City buy 720 Garden for a new police station), the veil of secrecy keeps it all hidden from the taxpayers.
Eggemann is your guy, but what has he done? He voted for Heinz’s contract extension, he voted for the settlement with the residency teacher. And I have not heard him spill the beans on any of those closed sessions he votes against knowing that they will still be passed. So it’s all talk and no action from him, too.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Having been a minority of one on the Park Board (1999-2003) and on the Library Board (2011-12), this editor knows from firsthand experience how tough it can be just to vote against a six/eight person majority, much less to blow the whistle on stuff that majority and the bureaucrats want to keep secret.
That being said, letting the secrecy continue virtually guarantees that the mistakes of the past will continue to be repeated.
Heinz only approached the members of the board for the approval of creating the council. They (board) had absolutely nothing to do with anything related to the decision process, they never even saw an application. I know 2 people that have been heavily involved in the school for years, a legit shoe in for what they stated they were looking for and were given the “I am unable to offer a spot to you this year.”
Thank you so much for volunteering to participate as a member of the Superintendent Community Relations Council (SCRT) to provide your perspective on District’s 64’s strategic objectives as well as other areas of focus. One of my goals for creating the council was to assemble a range of stakeholder voices from throughout the Park Ridge/Niles community that can increase two way communication. In attempt to balance the council membership and to ensure all stakeholder groups are represented, I am disappointed that I am unable to offer a spot to you this year. I truly appreciate your willingness to serve and encourage you to step forward again as other opportunities arise to support D64 and our communications outreach. I also would like to extend an open invitation to you to email me at [email protected] with your suggestions and input as we move forward.
Warm Regards,
Dr Laurie Heinz, Superintendent
EDITOR’S NOTE: If the Board let Heinz get away with stacking the CRC, then shame on the Board – not that most of them have any sense of shame when it comes to their Board duties.
But at least Heinz didn’t sign it “For Your Children” – so at least that bit of hypocrisy was suspended, however temporarily.
So is the SCRT going to have closed meetings or will they be open to the public? What’s the meeting schedule and where will it be posted?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Currently the remaining meetings for this school year are reportedly scheduled for January 12 and April 12.
Does Dr. Heinz’s education not include enough grammar to know that there is no capital “R” in “Warm regards”?
Best regards,
The Question
EDITOR’S NOTE: Given all the transparency and accountability failings by Heinz and the D-64 Board, her grammar is the least of our concerns.
What can a “council” of 19 people meeting only three times a year accomplish besides providing political cover to Heinz and the board? This isn’t education, only more politics to cover up the fact that the quality of education continues to decline.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That sounds about right.
Time for the double standard alert.
If any person came to this site and posted anonymously contradicting your position by stating “I know 2 people” and “legit shoe in” your head would explode and you would hammer said poster.
If a poster supports your position apparently this method is perfectly acceptable.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, sometimes we just ignore that kind of unsubstantiated posturing where, as in that commment, it adds nothing significant to the narrative – as opposed to those commentators who vigorously insist their points and authorities are entitled to the highest credibility and deference because of some imagined status or special experiences they claim to have.
Like when you claim to have been to more board meetings than other folks.
12:01:
“no citizens such as yourself organized any kind of “Truth Squad” to call them out on that propaganda and demand reality checks either initially or along the way”.
Guess that makes you a “sleeping feckless taxpayer”.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We assume this makes sense to you, but you’re going a little too James Joyce for us.
A 8:15 — I said a “legit shoe in for what they were looking for”. If you did not read the app questionnaire and see the answers that were given I guess you don’t know what I’m talking about. Also you question the “I know 2 people” statement. I think that carries some weight considering I have the copies of the rejection letters. Take the tin foil off Francis. If you are going to comment on something comment on the part that relates to the story, my first paragraph, not the fluff.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And because the Borrelli-led D-64 Board’s “culture of secrecy” kept the actual filled-out “app questionnaire[s]” under wraps – just like it kept Heinz’s mid-year and year-end reviews under wraps – the taxpayers have no idea whether Heinz selected a bunch of malleable bobble-heads or some inteligent, informed and independent-minded folks.
But considering their 3-times/year meeting schedule, it sure looks and sounds like a lot more foam than beer.
11:31:
My post was not aimed at whether or not your post is accurate. Rather, I was pointing out a double standard that exists on this site.
When someone posts something he disagrees with anonymously PD completely discounts their post by hammering on the fact that they are anonymous. If someone claimed to have letters he would “dare” them to show up at a D64 meeting and produce those letters on an open transparent way rather than hiding being anonymous. He would say that your letters carry zero weight because we have no idea who you are, let alone if you actually have any letters.
However if, like you, an anonymous poster is supporting his point he completely overlooks that they are anonymous.
Your information posted anonymously is no more or less valid than anyone else who chooses to post anon, which is 90%+ of the people who post here.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, we only criticize/ridicule anonymity when it is used as a launching pad for stupidity, ignorance, and viewpoints that the proponent clearly doesn’t have the stones to espouse in his/her own name.
Like most of your comments.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>