Public Watchdog.org

Irresponsible Administrator Raises At D-64 Set The Table For More Teacher Raises

08.20.16

An article in this week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate illustrates most of what is wrong with Park Ridge-Niles School District 64, as run by School Board president Tony “Who’s the Boss?” Borrelli, his sycophantic board members, and Supt. Laurie Heinz.

The article (“Raises for District 64 superintendent, 21 administrators to go before school board,” August 16) reports that Heinz and 21 other administrators will be given raises, including “market adjustments” for those earning less than “what competitive districts pay” – “competitive districts” allegedly being what Heinz calls the “North Cook 40” (“NC40”) and claims to consist of 40 elementary and high school districts in the north/northwest suburbs of Chicago.

We say “allegedly” because the H-A article identified only Arlington Heights, Des Plaines, Kenilworth, Northbrook and Wilmette as NC40 districts.  We couldn’t find any reference to the NC40 on the D-64 website, nor could we find it through a Google search. So for all we know, the NC40 is just a figment of Heinz’s imagination.

Not surprisingly, thosse raises and “market adjustments” weren’t earned by measurably better performance either from those administrators or from the schools/students they administer. After all, this is District 64 – where they keep telling us individual performance can’t even be measured, much less rewarded.

According to the H-A article, “Boss” Borrelli justified the “market adjustments” by claiming they are “critical to keep [sic] us on par with our competitors” – without providing one iota of data about how many administrators D-64 has lost to “competitors” because of salaries over the past 5-10 years.  And that’s coming from the same guy who seems unconcerned about getting student performance and rankings “on par with our competitors.”

Board member Scott Zimmerman – who has played “Robin” to Boss Borrelli’s “Batman” every bit as eagerly as he did for John Heyde during Heyde’s “Batman” years – chipped in with the observation that tying raises to the Consumer Price Index is “fair” because, that way, “people are keeping pace with the economy.”

When The Zimmer says “people,” however, he doesn’t mean the taxpayers. He can’t be bothered to think about the many taxpayers who don’t get raises unrelated to their performance or designed to protect them from inflation. In all their years on the Board, neither Zimm nor the Boss have given a rat’s derriere about whether the taxpayers’ incomes are “fair,” or keeping pace with inflation, or leaving them able to pay the raises Heinz and finance czarina Luann Kolstad decide upon, and that the Boss and Zimm keep rubber-stamping.

The Boss’ and Zimm’s only concern is keeping D-64 employment as lucrative, unaccountable and risk-free as possible. Which is why Heinz can shamelessly get away with spouting such nonsense as: “If money were no object, the sky would be the limit in terms of what I would want to offer this group of hard-working professionals” – despite no meaningful performance results, of course.

Chalk that up to Heinz’s being able to spend Other People’s Money (“OPM”) while pawning off activity as achievement, especially her own for which she is paid substantially more than the $205,020 “base salary” which  Kolstad disingenuously slipped past a naïve reporter.

But highlighting yet more fiscal irresponsibility by D-64 management isn’t the real point of this post.

Instead we want to point out the School Board’s latest affront to transparency and accountability, as described in that H-A article. In that regard we direct your attention to the fourth paragraph of that article, which states that these raises “will first be discussed with the school board during a closed meeting” – is there any other kind that matters at D-64? – “on August 22 before a public discussion takes place.” The former clandestine event is scheduled to kick off at 6:00 p.m. with the Kabuki for public consumption starting at 7:30 p.m. after a 7:00 p.m. tour of Washington School, presumably to display the prototype of the not-really-secured vestibule that will almost certainly be added to all the other District schools in the not-too-distant future for several million dollars.

Which means the most predictable scenario is Boss Borrelli leading his lemmings out of their Star Chamber to the sound of “Hallelujahs!” for Heinz and those 21 other administrators as the prelude to the 7:30 p.m. presentment of the two resolutions first published in the Board packet for the August 8 meeting, but presumably with the blanks filled in.

That will leave any taxpayers showing up to bear witness to such folly with no practical ability to analyze the resolutions’ ink-still-wet numbers or formulate meaningful questions and complaints about them before the Board engages in that passes for “debate” and then votes to approve those resolutions. At least that’s what Monday night’s agenda is suggesting.

Ignorant and unprepared is exactly the way Borrelli and Heinz prefer their constituents, especially those constituents who might actually pose a threat to Borrelli’s and Heinz’s hegemony.

Once this administrator salary scam is signed, sealed and delivered it will be time to trot out the next scam: the brand new teachers’ contract.

Just keep an eye on the chimney of 164 South Prospect for the first sign of white smoke.

To read or post comments, click on title

10 comments so far

Are you saying they will vote on these raises minutes after they announce what they are?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Check he meeting agenda embedded in the post and judge for yourself.

Well for once Zimmerman may be correct, let’s tie raises to the CPI which for the Chicago metro area is actually DOWN in the past year. Pay decreases for everyone!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Yeah, that’s EXACTLY what The Zimmer means.

Why would you think north cook 40 is made up?
https://www.ncisc.org/ncisc-school-districts

Come on -everything not a conspiracy Mr. Nixon

EDITOR’S NOTE: We thought it for the reasons we stated in the post. And based on the “North Cook Intermediate Service Center” website you’ve linked, it’s either the “North Cook 39” of the “North Cook 42,” depending on whether you count the special ed. districts.

And when it comes to Heinz and the D-64 Board, the problem is there’s more buffoonery than “conspiracy.”

I have lived here for almost 10 years and the d64 board has always treated residents like mushrooms. Kept in the dark and covered with manure.

I appreciate what you have been trying to do by pointing this out, but it seems like nobody who actually cares about the residents who keep d64 and d207 flush with cash runs for those boards. Or if they do, they go native almost immediately when they get elected (like Borelli and Childers who PW endorsed).

I admire you for keeping on keeping on. Maybe one day it will pay the dividend you and we deserve.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Until more people start paying attention and start expecting – and then DEMANDING more – from our school board members who are supposed to be representing US taxpayers, not the teachers and administrators, we’ll keep on getting the same treatment but at increasingly higher prices.

In this regard the 1976 movie “Network” – an AFI Top 100 film with a killer (and Oscar-winning) Paddy Chayefsky script – seems prescient, as does one of the many rants of the fictional anchor man “Howard Beale”:

“Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad!… You’ve got to say, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Then we’ll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'”

I have to say I am disappointed with the way Mr. Eggemann has conducted himself. I agreed with your endorsement and voted for him (and Borrelli) on that basis. Borrelli has become a disaster, and Eggemann seems lost and/or scared. The rest of them aren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell, but that was to be expected.

I will try to get there tonight because people are going to have to start showing up in numbers to let this school board know what a travesty they are perpetrating, both substantively with these raises and procedurally with the lack of transparency.

I don’t mind paying for solid performance. If the stats showed that D-64 students were performing better than in the past, and/or competitively with students in the highest performing districts within the “North Cook 40”, that would be something to recognize district leadership for accomplishing. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Whether you are in the private sector or in a public sector job, the expectation should be the same – “pay for performance”, not “pay for showing up…most of the time”.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This blog has consistently advocated for “pay for performance” and against “pay for showing up”…even ALL of the time. Unfortunately, Park Ridge taxpayers are represented either by happy tools of the D-64 administrators and the PREA, or by spineless pawns.

Hence, we pay more and more for attendance without performance.

Very confused about how this issue was handled last night. Am left with a bad taste in my mouth about the transparency and accountability of the Board.

The President started the public session of the meeting with a statement that the Board had met in closed session to discuss administrator and superintendent salaries (and the issue of a student). When they got to the administrator salary item of the agenda, there was a presentation by the Superintendent that included a statement that the administrators should receive a 1.0% cost of living raise and then that she be given a pot of money ($48,763 including the 1%) to distribute to the administrators based on performance and/or keeping up with the Jones (I.e. Where they stand in relation to a quartile established by this elusive north Cook salary range).

The conversation then was robust but contradictory. Under questioning by a Board member, Heinz variably said that she had 19, 20 or 21 administrators including principals, assistant principals and central office administrators. She absolutely did not have too many administrators based on the numbers in other communities. It became clear if you listened to the back and forth between Heinz and her finance person that the raises were already put into payroll, so the discussion really was all after the fact.

The pot of money was characterized as minimal–much time was discussed about the fact that there was an overage from last year so the amount of new money to be divided up among the 19, 20 or 21 very important employees was really under $20,000. The percent raise was different that the handouts provided to the public (which said 1.9%) and the numbers were thrown around, not reflected on any handout, and difficult to follow.

Two citizens spoke at the public comments portion and were critical of the raises and the fact that the Board did not ask whether the raises were tied to any metric about student performance. Then the Board got mad and so did the Superintendent. They spent at least 20 minutes saying how great the student performance was, how wonderful the Superintendent is and how fabulous the Board members are as stewards of the taxpayer dollars. They denigrated the speakers for having the audacity to speak and implied that no one may speak unless they show up at all the meetings and follow the issues–because, as our Super says–she doubts if anyone watches the videos.

Of course the motion passed unanimously.

But interestingly, they did not consider the Super’s salary…they decided they needed more info on the “quartile system” and where our super falls. They asked questions about her three year “rolling” contract which means she gets a two year notice if the Board wants to get rid of her but can quit at any time–apparently all the neighboring communities do it this way so it’s ok.

So my question is–what did they do in closed session on this issue if they had all these questions in front of the public?

Is this just another charade like the administrators’ raises? Was it a done deal in closed session and they decided someone might speak in opposition so they decided to kick the issue to another meeting? The un transparent process leaves me feeling like the Board is in bed with the Administrator (who is in bed with the teachers’ union because the Board in extolling the Super’s virtues says she was instrumental in those negotiations–can’t wait to see). When there is a lack of transparency, the public feels dissed and disrespected. Not good.

EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ll have to wait for the video (contrary to Ms. Heinz’s belief about viewership) to confirm your account, but its contents should surprise no one who has watched “Boss” Borrelli swoon like a schoolboy over Heinz’s every word, gesture and idea – and the rest of the Board bleat in support like Orwell’s “Animal Farm” sheep.

D-64 Board meetings are nothing but a “charade” any time anything controversial is on the agenda: it’s orchestrated, choreographed and rehearsed in closed session before the cast trots out onto the stage. Every so often somebody might have to improvise, but it’s pretty much a scripted performance designed to bamboozle the rubes who think it’s on the legit.

Which is why they don’t publish the “Playbill” enough in advance of the performance to give the audience sufficient time to research and formulate incisive questions with which to heckle the performers.

I was one of the two people who spoke up last night.

It was kind of late and, for personal reasons, I had in tow my three children aged 10, 11 and 12, so after listening the entire discussion and making my comment, I left. As I was walking out the door, I gathered that the next taxpayer to speak was taking a position similar to mine.

Whoever is “Anonymous 7:35 a.m.”, thanks for your report, which seems accurate to me. Tom Sotos, regardless of how he voted, deserves props for interrogating the issue as described in the above comment.

I am not surprised they went ahead and approved the raises, but I am VERY surprised they criticized us for speaking up. Yes, Dr. Heinz, I watch the videos, and I will certainly watch this one because I’d like to see how I was described in absentia.

The Board was so disorganized that when it came time to officially make the motion being considered, nobody could state the specifics. It seemed to me they are so accustomed to waving things through that specifics seldom matter.

Lastly, regarding the fact that it was late and I had to go put my children to bed, I’m sure some will point out that the Board members put in many late nights discharging their duties as our elected representatives. I want to clarify that I respect and appreciate their community service — and ask that they do the same when it comes to my speaking out on behalf of my family. Every thousand dollars they raise my property taxes means a thousand dollars less in my children’s college fund. I support public education — but only up to a point.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Thank you, Mr. Schildwachter, for bearing witness to the buffoonery that passes for responsible representative government at D-64.

We’re glad to hear that Board member Sotos can ask probing questions. Now we look forward to the day when he might consistently convert the answers he gets into cogent votes – preferably for the taxpayers he’s supposed to be repreesenting rather than for the teachers represented by the PREA, and for the carpetbaggers who cart their hefty paychecks off to other communities rather than reside and pay RE taxes here.

Finally, for board members putting in “many late nights discharging their duties” – allegedly as “our elected representatives” – so what? Activity without achievement is wasted unless you’re an incompetent politicians or bureaucrat desperate for something to brag about, which would explain the Board members’ and administators’ “at least 20 minutes [of] saying how great the student performance was, how wonderful the Superintendent is and how fabulous the Board members are as stewards of the taxpayer dollars” that Anonymous @ 7:35 am described.

Go get’em dog!

EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t have to, Silly – they come to us.

Mr. Eggeman believes that he’s owed that chair.
Just like his wife…who also wants the 28th Senate seat. It’s all part of the 1st ward gang and their agenda.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Can you provide a translation?

And, FYI, Mr. Eggemann and his wife live in the 7th Ward, so we’re not sure how they qualify for membership in any “1st ward gang.”



Leave a comment
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>

(required)

(optional and not displayed)