Last week’s edition of the Park Ridge Herald-Advocate published a story (“Out-of-district family ordered to pay $12,731 to District 64,” Dec. 3) about the Board of Park Ridge-Niles School District 64 voting, at its November 30, 2015 special meeting, to charge a family $12,731 because it enrolled two children in D-64 schools despite the fact that the children lived in Des Plaines.

That violates the District’s policy that only children physically residing in the District may attend District schools.

The $12,731 represents a $78.59 per diem for each child’s days of attendance.

The H-A story, however, does not explain how exactly the District will go about actually collecting that money, or what the costs of collection might be if the scofflaws refuse to pay. It did report, however, that the District paid $5,522.50 for a private investigator to gather evidence of the non-residency; and $900 for a hearing officer conduct the hearing at which the violation was found.

So if the offenders make the payment with no further cost to the District, the net recovery to the District’s taxpayers will be $6,308.50 – or roughly half what the offenders unlawfully sucked out of the District. That’s better than a sharp stick in the eye, although somebody at D-64 should be looking into how these parasites also can be charged for those investigation and hearing costs.

In case you’re not familiar with the shorthand terminology of this blog, “parasites” are non-resident, non-taxpayers who intentionally feed off those goods and/or services paid for by our resident taxpayers.

Parasites are to be distinguished from “freeloaders,” which is our shorthand term for resident taxpayers who make sure they get far more in tax-funded benefits than they actually pay in taxes.

Supt. Laurie Heinz indicated that this is the first family to be charged for unlawful attendance since the District implemented its new residency re-verification process at the beginning of this 2015-16 school year, although we thought that dubious distinction fell to the kids of the D-64 teacher living in Chicago who nevertheless claimed to be residing in the District.

Heinz also said that several other investigations are ongoing. Hopefully the District will dilligently pursue them and they will yield similar or even better returns.

Not surprisingly, however, the H-A article reports that the Tony Borrelli-led School Board (like the John Heyde-led board before it) conducted all its discussions of this matter in its typical Star Chamber closed-sessions – before staging its required open-session public vote. Also not surprisingly, the parasites were not identified.

Why not? The H-A article doesn’t say. And, frankly, we can’t think of any good reason.

Folks merely charged – not convicted, just charged – with DUI, or marijuana possession, or the theft of a $200 cell phone, are likely to get their names and a brief account of the charges against them published in the H-A and/or the Park Ridge Journal, albeit with the disclaimer that: “An arrest does not constitute a finding of guilt.”

So why the special treatment for adults who were administratively adjudicated, after an evidentiary hearing, of ripping off D-64 taxpayers for almost $13,000 worth of education for their kids – and who likely would have continued ripping us off for tens of thousands of dollars more had they not been caught?  What privacy rights, or privacy expectations, do the parasitic parents/guardians have, especially after they’ve been found guilty?

The D-64 Board and Adminstration isn’t saying.

That’s the problem with the secrecy of the Star Chamber proceedings regularly run by Borrelli and rubber-stamped by most of the Board.

But as you can see and hear from the video of that special Board meeting – most of which was conducted in…wait for it…closed session – there may be a faint breeze of transparency in the air.

Starting at the 4:55 mark (of what is only a 12-minute video), Borrelli seems to off-load responsibility for closed sessions onto the D-64 Administration and/or its attorneys by suggesting he’s in the dark about what topics and information actually excuse all those closed sessions he’s been calling.  Nevertheless, he goes on to describe a new procedure by which the Board can evaluate in advance of the closed-session votes the appropriateness of proposed closed sessions.

That sounds like an improvement over the current procedure that has Borrelli quoting the numerical designations for various exceptions to open meetings under the Illinois Open Meetings Act (“IOMA”) right before taking the closed-session votes – even if it doesn’t sound like the memos he’ll be sharing with fellow Board members will show up in the meeting Board packets available to the public.

Moving from darkness to light tends to be a slow process, especially for those who prefer the dark.

We’d like to think that our consistently calling out Borrelli for his Heyde-like secretive ways contributed to this new initiative.  But since Borrelli is unlikely to ever admit something like that, we won’t make that claim.  But we’re pretty sure that Board member Mark Eggemann’s votes against many/most closed sessions (sometimes/often joined by Board member Tom Sotos) was a factor.

Irrespective of what may have motivated it, however, it’s still a step in the right direction, albeit a baby step.

Now let’s see how long it takes for Borrelli and the Board to show us they can walk

To read or post comments, click on title.