One thing the Park Ridge-Niles School District 64 Board and Administration have proved themselves quite adept at is distracting attention away from the District’s lackluster (compared to other upper-income communities) academic performance and directing that attention at semi-meaningless issues.
This current side show is a school-run hot lunch program for the District’s five elementary schools.
As reported in last week’s Park Ridge Herald-Advocate (“District 64 board rejects hot lunch program for elementary schools,” April 28), Supt. Laurie Heinz and Finance Czarina Luann Kolstad want to institute a hot lunch program in all five K-5 schools similar to what is currently in place at Emerson and Lincoln middle schools.
Despite some decent Googling, we could not find any hits for local newspaper articles reporting on why and how Emerson and Lincoln middle schools got their hot lunch programs. But by reading through a bunch of School Board meeting minutes we discovered (in the April 5, 2010 minutes) that Arbor Management, Inc. was “selected in June 2009.” Unfortunately, the District’s meeting minutes on its website don’t go back to 2009, so we can’t tell if that selection process was the result of competitive bidding or some sweetheart no-bid deal.
The March 18, 2013 minutes indicate that the original contract was for five years and would have expired during the 2013-14 school year. We also discovered a vendor report for that same school year showing that D-64 paid Arbor $538,647.
Not too shabby for what may have been a no-bid contract.
But after Arbor picked up around $2.5 million over those five years of its contract, did our representatives on the D-64 Board even think about putting the contract out to bid again?
Shirley, you jest!
At the March 24, 2014 meeting the Tony Borrelli-led Board unanimously extended the Arbor contract on the consent agenda, without even any discussion – unless the discussion went on in one of D-64’s trademark secretive closed sessions.
And they did the very same thing at the February 23, 2015 meeting.
So when we heard that Heinz and the Czarina now want to give Arbor an additional no-bid $1 million/year deal for the elementary schools, while spending $90,000 to facilitate Arbor’s servicing of those schools, we started wondering about just who might know whom.
Because this sounds like a chapter right out of the kinky Barbara Byrd Bennett/CPS playbook.
Heinz’s and Kolstad’s recommendation allegedly was based on a March 2015 survey of over 1,000 respondents, 65% of whom supported such a program even though that survey – in typical local government style – made no mention of what the per-meal cost would be. That’s like asking somebody whether they want a new Mercedes (“YES!”) without telling them it will cost them $100,000 (“Um…er…maybe not right now, thanks.”).
Not surprisingly, the survey results, and especially the 373 comments that go with it, highlight the shortcomings of this kind of “don’t tell ’em the cost” proposal, as well as the unrealistic expectations of too many parents who want somebody else to make their kids’ lunch but also want the program to operate like a restaurant (e.g., “A daily lunch program that is available regardless of if you signed up ahead of time would make my life so much easier”), albeit a health-food restaurant (“Organic, low carb and include steamed or raw veggies and fruit”; “Dye free and no high fructose corn syrups, etc.”).
Of course, many parents also want that cost to be “reasonable” without saying exactly what “reasonable” means to them. But judging from all the whining that regularly occurs every time some of these folks have to pay a modest fee in connection with their kids’ $14,000 “free” educations, “reasonable” is likely to be defined by “How much of the cost can we push onto our fellow taxpayers?”
Amazingly, however, the Heinz/Kolstad proposal was rejected by Board president Tony Borrelli and his usually complicit rubber-stamp Board, reportedly because of the cost of the program to the District, staffing concerns and concerns about food waste.
That’s puzzling, considering that the cost of the program shouldn’t be a factor if the participating parents pay the fully-loaded costs of the program, including ALL costs attributable to staffing, utilities, etc. And why should the costs be a concern in light of the Finance Czarina’s projections of an annual program surplus of about $69,000?
Could it be because even these rubber-stamp Board members realize that the Czarina’s projections of an average lunch costing $3.75 and 50% participation at each school are total bull-shinola?
Or all those Board members except Bob Johnson, apparently, who voted for it while arguing that school-provided hot lunches “could result in better nutrition than what they’re bringing to school today.” Because, of course, schools that can’t seem to educate their students on par with other comparable districts have nothing better to do than also take on the parents’ nutritional duties.
Park Ridge isn’t Englewood or Lawndale, where even a pedestrian school meal might be the only decent food those students get each day. If a D-64 parent can’t slap some bologna between two slices of bread – or lovingly lay a grilled salmon filet with dill sauce into a ciabatta roll – and stick it in a bag with some chips and an apple, that’s the parent’s problem.
It shouldn’t become the District’s or the District’s taxpayers’ problem just because Heinz is looking to curry favor with parents while ringing up some kind of faux-accomplishment to excuse her failure to move the needle on student performance and justify another contract extension and raise like she got last year.
Negotiated in secretive closed sessions, Borrelli-Board style, of course.
To read or post comments, click on title.
19 comments so far
Gee back is the 80’s when I was attending no one was demanding schools to serve lunch.
At least not that I know of so why now?
From what I understand the district didn’t begin to have a so called lunch program till 1972.
Up until then kids were expected to go home for lunch.
Now I’m glad today kids are allowed to stay since it seems silly to go home for lunch especially during bad weather days but maybe this is pushing it.
Is this one of those situations where contracts were done in closed meetings and redacted out once the minutes were sent out?
How does the school system manage to do this without going through the normal bidding process that is inherent in the rules and regulations? Or is it not regulated since it is only at a limited number of schools, initially?
EDITOR’S NOTE: With this “Borrelli Board,” as with the previous “Heyde Board,” it seems that nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. But we do know that all of Heinz’s “evaluations” – such as they were – were done behind closed doors, as were the discussions about her contract extension. So you can be sure other things are also happening in secret.
Not sure what “rules and regulations” you’re referring to, but this being Illinois we’re sure there are more than enough loopholes for tranparency and accountability avoiders like the folks at D-64 to wiggle through.
Boy you sure have a different read on this than our local candidate for state senator.
On his facebook page he refers to the 90K as “state mandates” jacking up costs to local government. I am not sure where gets this as it seems to me that there are costs and equipment associated with getting a lunch program up and running at 6 elementary schools.
He goes on to state “this effectively ends a program that is working for our school district”. What program does it end?? The program will still be in place at the middle schools just as it has been. It will just not be in elementary schools and one can’t claim that it is “working for our school district” when the program has not been in these schools in the first place.
I agree with you on this one and I think the board got it right. I cannot see a real need or a large enough benefit for a lunch program in elementary schools.
What I find so funny is they talk about nutrition but then there is a Pizza fun raiser every week for the entire year. Now that is healthy eating!
So now you are complaining about potentially instituting s lunch program that parents would fund through paying a fee to participate?
What next complaining about your neighbor buying a car nicer than yours with his own hard earned money?
Your blog is jumping the shark fonzie.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If parents would FULLY fund it with user fees, we’re guessing that this rubber-stamp Board would have jumped at it. But at $3.75 a meal ($15/week) and with all the reservations (no nuts, gmo, fat, or sugar; vegetarian, vegan and kosher desired; etc) expressed in the comments, even this Board must have figured out that the Finance Czarina was playing fun with numbers.
“Semi-meaningless issues” should be the new title for your blog.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And yet you just can’t stay away.
Dog? Aren’t you da one always saying glenview giving a better value to kids/taxpayers relative to schools bc kids scoring higher there?
Found the answer. Glenview has a hot lunch program already? That must be making the kids smarter. You keep advocating for us to do what these higher scoring schools are doing- let’s follow their lead and add hot lunch !
See how dumb your comparisons can be?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Well, if that’s the game you want to play, you had better read the fine print about Glenview’s hot lunch program: “The District Food Services Program is run by employees of the district not a contracted catering company.” http://www.glenview34.org/parents/foodServices/aboutFoodServices.asp
So the no-bid million dollar-plus contract to contracted catering company Arbor wouldn’t cut the mustard.
Forgot to add the glenview link to hot lunch program
http://www.glenview34.org/parents/foodServices/
EDITOR’S NOTE: So even with the correct information source you still can’t get it right? No wonder you insist on remaining anonymous.
Parents who can’t make their kids’ lunches suck. No-bid multi-million dollar contracts suck worse. School Board sucks, administrators suck, education by D64 is pulling down Maine South. Whistle past the graveyard, Tony Borrelli and Laurie Heinz, but you’re ruining education in Park Ridge and making us the landing zone for the riff raff who can’t afford Glenview, Northbrook, Northfield, Wilmette, Deerfield, Highland Park, Linconshire,Vernon Hills, Elmhurst, Palatine, Mt. Prospect, Buffalo Grove, etc.
EDITOR’S NOTE: C’mon now, tell us how you really feel.
http://www.d64.org/boe/documents/bd_rep_12_15_14.pdf
Page 5 bid for food service contract renewal Lincoln middle.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Had you looked at the actual minutes of the March 23,2015 meeting you would have seen that there was no “bid for food service contract renewal” at that meeting – because the rubber-stamp Borrelli Board had already approved a “Contract Extension” for Arbor, on the consent agenda without any bid or any discussion on the record, at the February 23, 2015 meeting.
So not only are you Silly Drivel but you’re also Not Very Bright Drivel, or Hip-Shooting Drivel.
So what makes you so certain more than one qualified bid was submitted kettle calling me black.
Just shooting from hip right?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Can you try a little more lucidity – assuming you’re capable of it – because this comment reads as if it were written by an ESL student.
Anon 5/3 7:13 PM,
I agree with you that the board got the decision right. What you must not know is that some form of hot lunches have been offered in the K-5 schools for at least a few years.
The State mandate I refer to, as is mentioned in the article linked above, is the new state law that requires more stringent certification of the people handing out the food at the schools.
Today, at Washington School where my kids go, there is a program run largely by parent volunteers, which allows parents to buy their kids hot lunch four days a week (three healthy lunch days plus pizza day) for less money than is proposed here, and without the $90,000 required upgrades to an in school kitchen. I’m fairly certain that program is running relatively smoothly now (except for the kids huge preference for pizza day over the other healthier food days). The meals are prepared in some commercial kitchen, transported to the schools and handed out by the parents.
It’s working and this new state law effectively ends it and adds capital and operating costs.
And this is just a small and easily digestible (pun intended) example. The state mandates huge amounts of added costs and operational deviations on school districts and other units of local government, which is one of the reasons we have the highest property taxes in the nation.
I know you are slow but…
If a contract is put out for bid….stay with me….but only one company submits a bid…still with me?… Or only one company submits a qualified proposal(one that meets the requirements of the bid) …then there is only one bid to approve.
My question to you…which you avoided answering…is since documents say there was a bid for food service advertised how do you know that isn’t true? What is your basis that the district didn’t try to solicit competitive bids?
Since you apparently are too slow to understand I’ll answer for you… You have no basis in fact ..your whole post is based on guess and speculation.
EDITOR’S NOTE: No, the “documents” DON’T “say there was a bid for food service advertised.” What you refer to is a schedule of future meetings with tentative agenda items, at least one of which was false.
And our “basis that the district didn’t try to solicit competitive bids” since 2009 is that there is NOTHING in either the Board meeting minutes or the meeting materials indicating anything other than an “extension” of the existing contract – without any solicitation or receipt of any bid(s) or the issuance of a new contract rather than an extension of the existing one.
So what we have is just another cooked deal by an incompetent, secretive and unaccountable D-64 Board and administration that can’t even deliver top-shelf education for the big-bucks they shake out of our taxpayers.
Discussion free, consent agenda extensions of half-million dollar contracts sound very wrong to me. Too bad Jennifer Johnson could not even figure out how that should be part of any discussion or report about the hot lunch program for the school district. Thanks for doing the media’s job for them and for us.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re welcome.
Mel:
Thanks for your service however on this one we disagree. I too am against government over reach and the costs it can cause but you are making this out to fit one of your issues.
I have my paper right in front of me and I see nothing here that would kill the existing program. You cry wolf about the people handing out the food to go through “stringent certification”.
Tim Schwartz (City health inspector) stated the following: “They just need to have someone who is certified, but they don’t need to be on site all the time”. He also said that the certified person will not need to be present during each food service.
While I am sure there is a cost for that certification, and you might think that is unnecessary (and I might agree with you), to pretend that this somehow kills this beloved program does not seem to be true. It certainly does not seem to be supported buy this article or the city health inspector.
Mel:
You are going to have to clarify a few things. I read the article you linked to and I fail to see how the new law “effectively ends it”.
It appears you linked to an article posted 4/28. You should be aware that the “same” article you linked to was updated in the printed version. It has a significant difference to the one you linked to. You can find the updated article on line dated 5/3.
In the one you linked to it states that messages to PR health inspectors had not been returned. Well they called back and are now one the record.
You state that the law “requires more stringent certification of the people handing out the food at the schools”.
Tim Schwarz states in the updated article that “they just need to have someone who is certified, but they don’t have to be on site all the time”.
He also states “one certified food manager will be required for each school, he said, though the manager will not need to present during every food service”.
Now one might argue that this does add an extra cost and I might very well agree but I cannot see how this would kill the program if it is so well received.
Discussion free, consent agenda extensions of half-million dollar contracts sound very wrong to me. Too bad Jennifer Johnson could not even figure out how that should be part of any discussion or report about the hot lunch program for the school district. Thanks for doing the media’s job for them and for us.
EDITOR’S NOTE: You’re welcome.
BY ANONYMOUS ON 05.05.16 6:17 AM
Aren’t you going to call out the above person for being a COWaRD and not signing his or her name? For shame anonymous. For shame. Wait dog only berates such anonymous posts from those that disagree with him. Forget it comrades pubdog apparently is more like Fidel Castro in that regard than Thomas Jefferson.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Poor Silly Drivel – you should be grateful we publish your tripe anonymously so you don’t have to publicly humiliate yourself.
There is a weblink on district 64 website where they supposedly post competitive bids. I’m going to keep an eye on it to see what types of contracts pop up on there. I’m pretty sure there are laws on the books that amounts over a certain dollar value must be competitively bid in Illinois for public schools.
http://www.d64.org/business/bid-rfp-documents.cfm
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yes there are but, this being crooked Illinois, those laws have exceptions – and we assume the secretive D-64 Board and administration are relying on the “perishable” foods and beverage exception to 105 ILCS 5/10-20.21:
Sec. 10-20.21. Contracts.
(a) To award all contracts for purchase of supplies and materials or work involving an expenditure in excess of $25,000 or a lower amount as required by board policy to the lowest responsible bidder, considering conformity with specifications, terms of delivery, quality and serviceability, after due advertisement, except the following:
(iv) contracts for the purchase of perishable foods and perishable beverages;
The don’t ask, don’t tell D-64 Board members and administrators – along with their counterparts at D-207 – believe that anything that CAN be done secretively SHOULD be done secretively. The same thing apparently goes for exceptions to public bidding.
Poor Silly Drivel – you should be grateful we publish your tripe anonymously so you don’t have to publicly humiliate yourself.
You are right there is only room enough for one person to publicly humiliate themselves through Internet postings …you have the market cornered in that regard Mr. Bob.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Opinions vary.
I have lived in many states across our fine land, and have also worked in PR for an urban public school system outside of Illinois. That background information is supplied because I don’t get the sturm und drang about providing hot meals for students. Park Ridge is pretty much the only place I have lived where such is not the norm.
Why the angst? Thank you.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Parents who want to offload lunch-making onto the schools, and schools looking for diversions to distract taxpayer attention away from the stagnant-to-declining education being provided.
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>