From time to time we write about how various units of local government botch the “small things,” and how that should give all of us pause about how they are handling the big things.
So the moment we read the words “arbitrary student fees” in the headline of a recent Park Ridge Herald-Advocate article (“District 64 officials debate ‘arbitrary’ student fees” Jan. 17), we were pretty sure that that what would follow wasn’t going to be delightful.
That highly-informative, well-written article – by reporter Natasha Wasinski, who has done some of the most solid reporting on local government we’ve seen around these parts in at least 20 years, and who shines again with this article – shines a spotlight on the way per-student fees are charged by Park Ridge-Niles Elementary School District 64. And that article didn’t even mention all those fees which D-64 apparently doesn’t even bother to collect, which we wrote about in our 11.18.13 post.
How screwed up is the situation with these “arbitrary student fees”? Let’s start with the explanation of those fees by D-64 Business Manager Rebecca Allard:
“It is an arbitrary number that has been determined by what is acceptable” to each community.
Not only is it “arbitrary” but, from the sound of things, it seems pretty clear that nobody at D-64 has even attempted to ascertain the actual costs of books, supplies, technology and activities considered tangential to an education program, and then to charge fees that cover the costs of those items. Confronted by such a basic disconnect in how a market economy works on such a small scale, we have to wonder once again just how our highly-paid administrators and our unpaid School Board members deal with all the other parts of the District’s $73 million/year operations.
We are left to wonder about that because, frankly, the various explanations given by D-64 personnel – as reported in that H-A article – fall between unintelligible and stupid-bordering-on-demented.
Let’s give Business Manager Allard another crack at it:
“I don’t know of too many districts that actually tie their [fee] revenues to the expenses and expect that number to be equal.” Chalk that up to the tried and true “nobody else does it, so why should we” defense of arbitrary bureaucratic decision-making.
Becky! Sweetheart! We’re talking basic math here. You know, addition and subtraction. How tough can it be to add up the costs of what each kid is using and charge the parents that amount?
According to the H-A article, REALLY tough. Allard describes it as a “very-labor intensive” process, presumably because she claims she’s “never seen a list from the school code and/or the State Board of Education that says you can charge this but you can’t charge that.”
We’ve tended to subscribe to Mark Twain’s description of the school board, at both its state and local levels. But even with that bias, we’d like to think that the reason the State Board hasn’t provided such a list is because it expected highly-paid bureaucrats like Allard to be able to figure out that if you pay $1 for a package of pencils, you charge the student’s parents that same $1.
Or is it that Allard and D-64 just don’t want to charge the actual cost of those expenses?
According to the H-A article, citing data compiled by the D-64 Community Finance Committee (the “CFC”), last year D-64 charged the highest fees out of 23 local districts, including Wilmette, Winnetka and Glencoe.
Roosevelt School parent-activist Kathy Ranalli, a CFC member who also reportedly works for Niles Elementary School District 71, is quoted in the H-A article as complaining about these fees thusly: “I feel like if you’re going to ask me for all this money, then show me that you’re doing everything in your power to save and use my money wisely.”
Those words should be a mantra for ALL taxpayers of EVERY local governmental body, including those who are paying a whole lot more in taxes and fees for their various local governments than D-64’s mandatory $84 kindergarten fee, its mandatory $227 elementary school fee, and the mandatory $315 middle school fee about which Ranalli beefs. Given that parents of D-64 children are getting “free” educations worth around $13,000 a year per child, those mandatory fees sound like a bargain – unless, of course, you’re one of those people for whom anything identifiable as “government”-related is synonymous with “free.”
Or, at the very least, heavily subsidized by other people’s money (“OPM”).
Interestingly enough, according to the H-A article Ranalli’s CFC last year proposed a reduction in those fees. But that reduction wasn’t intended to correspond to the actual costs of the products and services being provided. All the CFC wanted to do was simply chop those fees to make them more comparable to the fees charged by other districts, irrespective of the actual costs!
Brilliant. Replacing one set of fantasy fees with another set of fantasy fees.
But it gets even better!
According to the H-A article, the most D-64 could collect in fees – based on the current fee structure – is $974,502, yet the District’s expenditures related to those fees are $1.7 million. So D-64 is slamming the taxpayers for an extra $800,000 or so, rather than charging the parents of the kids using the goods and services their actual fully-loaded costs.
And we just have to remind you: Ms. Ranalli’s CFC wanted to cut those fees so that the taxpayers would get hammered even more. And those CFC folks are the people the D-64 Board is relying on for the Board’s understanding of, and planning for, the District’s financial matters!
Can you say: “Inmates are running the asylum”? We knew you could.
But let’s not forget about Business Manager Allard. What does she have to say about this kind of deficit spending?
“I don’t know of too many districts that actually tie their [fee] revenues to the expenses and expect the number to be equal.”
No, because it’s just so darn easy to keep bilking the taxpayers while those elected school board members in all those various districts who have sworn an oath to look out for the taxpayers’ interests just blindly shuffle along to the sound of the clanging bell, into those green pastures where they can peacefully chew their $70 million-plus (and rising, every year) cuds.
And “Moo-ooooo” whenever the administrators – those highly-paid “professional” educators and finance people – tell them to.
To read or post comments, click on title.
23 comments so far
OMG, PubDog. When I saw “arbitrary” I thought it was your word, being inflammatory again.
LOL. I had to read the first part three times to get that the employee — our employee — actually used that term, and accurately, to boot! I had NO idea that the fees — big, small or in-between — bore no relation to the District’s actual costs. If they want to use keystone (the near-double of wholesale retailers use to pay rent, lights, salaries, etc.) that’s ok with me. But for heaven’s sake, not to have ANY connection or rationale for what’s charged?
This is — well, there are no words.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And THEY are in control of over $70 million of our money each year; AND of our kids’ education.
Great analysis. Parents and Taxpayers both get the runaround and the shaft, because neither group is charged according to what things really cost, and all budgets rise automatically every year. There are only two other ironies in all this:
(1) It took a $227 a year fee to get parents all up in arms about how much things cost, while taxpayers regularly pay thousands of dollars to teach their children.
(2) Nobody has wondered what poor business management skills might infer about poor administrative skills in general, and the effect upon the very children we’re supposed to be educating.
EDITOR’S NOTE: And we give them over $70 million a year to spend on our kids’ education.
Yeah, it’s pretty ridiculous that the administration admits that the fee is arbitrary. But I think it’s kind of sad that while a few parents can muster up some outrage over high fees, no one is raising any fuss about school performance. I think the school district (207, too) does a decent job in educating our kids but until parents demand more then not much will change.
It’s a matter of priority. The schools that are routinely ranked higher are in communities where residents expect and demand a lot from their schools. Park Ridge seems content to settle for decent and adequate. That is, as long as fees aren’t too high.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t think responsible parents trade off a $200 student fee for mediocre performance. Instead we think D-64 passes off mediocre performance as good/great performance. When was the last time you heard the D-64 administration or school board publicly state that the D-64 test results are unacceptable? Instead, they tell everybody how wonderful they are and brag about semi-meaningless awards like the Bright Red Apple.
Teachers in PR do not get the shaft! The problem with all of this is we (the taxpayers) are paying for a lot more than “decent and adequate”!
Dear Anon. at 8:44 am: Agree. When I used the word “shaft” in my earlier comment it was to say “Parents and Taxpayers both get the runaround and the shaft”. Parents, yes. Taxpayers, worse. Teachers? No, they do not get the shaft. Agree.
Unfortunately I believe your outrage is directed at the wrong group–parents who pay or do not pay these student fees. I moved from Chicago to Park Ridge because of their school system (at that time-Main South was top 10. Today has fallen to #28). I now pay close to 1000 dollars a year for “extra” charges to send my children to grammar school. Let us argue real issues here. Under the state constitution, a “public” education is FREE. The institution can NOT charge for books, writing utensils, etc.., That is why I along with all of you pay property taxes. And that is why these “public” schools get funded by the state. Now, the Board of Education because of mismanagement, salaries, etc.., is underfunded. They start to charge parents “fees”. Yes, Illegal, but we pay because we believe our children are worth it. But when asked WHAT exactly are these fees paying for, we only get generalities and no REAL answer. Is it possible that our fees are going to “before” and “after” school programs that our children are NOT a part of? Is there a possibility that our fees are going for lunch programs that parents can not afford and thus those fees are in it as well? How about the kids that can not afford to go to a school function like what Field Elementary does for its 5th graders at the end of every year? Do our fees then go to pay for those children that can not afford to attend but do not want to exclude them?
As the years roll by and I am illegally taxed by the district, YES, I do get upset. I have attended the ELF functions annually, I have given to every school fund raiser as well as donated items to them. Roughly it comes out to close to 1500 dollars a year give or take (NOT including the student fees). But ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with cheating me. How many of your readers will not have a problem with being charged extra for what was guaranteed to be free? Take over the air TV. Suppose to be free right? How would you feel if those that watch only over the air TV are charged 250 dollars annually? Why–because we say so.
Therefore, I ask that you look at the law, see that parents should NOT be charged and direct your outrage to those that deserve it: The Board of Education and the State for not handling their affairs. For those that still do not believe I am right. Below is just one of many links to a lawsuit filed and won in another state on student fees (there is another from Indiana-one as low as 25 dollars a year). Do you really believe that the District has not put parents in collections or published their names because they are inept (loaded question)? No, they have not done so because they know it is ILLEGAL and thus do not want to open themselves up to a lawsuit WITH damages. I have paid my fees every year, but my questions have fallen on deaf ears because the board still gets my money. They will not address the issue until their scheme fails which will only happen with a lack of payment.
http://www.mymcharterlaw.com/pdf/ACLU_lawsuit_re_charging_fees_with_JEY_edits_092710-FINAL_101310.pdf
Thank you for your time, George
EDITOR’S NOTE: George:
We do believe that you are entitled to a detailed itemizations of exactly to what your fee payments are going – hence this post. And if you truly believe you are being taxed or charged unconstitutionally, we would hope you and your fellow non-payers do the right thing and FILE SUIT AGAINST THE DISTRICT to vindicate your and everyone else’s rights, rather than take the easy/sleazy way out and simply refuse to pay.
Because by our calculations, if you are paying “close to 1000 dollars a year for ‘extra’ charges to send [your] children to grammar school,” you must have either 2 or 3 children in those schools – which means that your children are receiving between approximately $26,000 and $39,000 worth of education EACH YEAR.
And we KNOW you aren’t paying $39,000 in taxes TO D-64 this year because NO single-family homeowner in Park Ridge pays anything close to that amount TO D-64 in any one year. So how many years will it take you to pay just the $39,000 in taxes TO D-64 to cover only this year’s tuitions? And at that rate, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of educational services will you ring up at D-64, and do you have any intention of ever getting remotely close to “square” with D-64 through your payment of taxes before your kids no longer use those schools and you move to a lower-taxed community?
We’d love to feel your pain, George, really we would. But if and your fellow scofflaws refuse to file suit to legally challenge what you believe to be unconstitutional conduct by D-64 and, instead, just stop paying, you fall into our “freeloaders” category. But don’t feel bad: as can be seen from some of the comments submitted to various posts, some people view that as a badge of honor.
George, I hope you’re not serious about wanting to deprive poor kids of lunch or the graduation event! Children need to eat, buddy; and they also need to be encouraged to feel part of the society they live in. Excluding them at this age because their parents aren’t financially successful is not only cruel, it’s stupid. Can you say Columbine, class?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t disagree with you in principle. But given D-64’s obvious apathy or ineptitude in itemizing and collecting these fees, can we really expect that administration to effectively determine whether parents truly “aren’t financially successful” rather than simply freeloaders and scofflaws?
What I don’t get is why are these fees so much higher than the surrounding areas?
—From D64 — Elementary school fees help to defray the costs associated with: textbooks, supplies, technology, and activities.—
On top of this at the beginning of the year parents are given a list of supplies for the class, prob about $50-60 Here is the link to the supply list. http://www.d64.org/subsite/fie/page/supply-lists-2010-2011-828
Now I’m not ragging on getting pencils and stuff, I pay every year for all costs. My point is this list covers just about everything a kid would need. So what exactly do their fees cover and why can’t D64 itemize it?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t put any stock in what other school districts do – most of them probably aren’t any better managed than our districts. But since Ms. Allard admits that D-64’s fees are “arbitrary,” you might effectively be paying $25 for a ream of copy paper or a box of paper clips. But maybe they’re really good paper clips.
George, congratulations, you have been nominated “Unabashed Freeloader of the Year” for 2014.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Don’t you believe it, George! Stiffing the taxapayers for only $1,000 a year – assuming you actually have not made your fee payments – may not even get you a Dishonorable Mention.
Your a Borelli guy, so whats your explanation for how this is happening while he’s the president of the school board?
EDITOR’S NOTE: As we’ve pointed out before, Borrelli may be the president but from what we can tell he doesn’t come close to controlling a majority (4) of the Board votes. Nevertheless, now that the Board has become his “watch,” we hope he will open a “public” discussion and inspire some “public” action – that the public can actually see, hear and read about in the newspapers – to address this issue, even if he can’t muster a Board majority to actually solve the problem.
George, you’re a Midday Rambler. Despite that, I was curious enough about your claim that education is “free” to look it up in the Illinois Constitution. Sure enough, it does declare that education shall be free: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm
So what do we mean by “free”? According to this language, do you think it is wrong for the state to charge you a property tax?
George? C’mon, comment again, you entertain me.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Sounds like George and friends have the basis for a lawsuit. So the questions are: (1) will D-64 change its fee policy voluntarily; (2) if not, will George and friends file suit; or (3) will they just remain scofflaws and trust that D-64 will continue to bumble and fumble around on this issue, and not collect the fees?
Anon 1.22 at 2:31 pm — “Columbine”? Really? Did I miss some irony?
I’m quite sure there IS irony in George’s previous comment, though. He worried that his fees may be paying for after-school programs in which his children do not participate. Tell that to the taxpayers who we *know* are subsidizing those after-school programs. The state constitution doesn’t guarantee after-school programs shall be free.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We haven’t looked at the common/case law to see where courts have drawn the line on “free,” but maybe George and friends can clarify that for us.
District 64 gives each student a very specific list of items to bring the first week of school. If they can be specific with that, why can’t they be specific about the makeup of the fees charged?
EDITOR’S NOTE: This seems a whole lot less “can’t” and a whole lot more “won’t.” WHY that is remains to be seen and explained.
Come on. I don’t believe for a second that this is about what’s legal or Constitutional. It’s simply petty unwillingness to not see a single penny go to anything that doesn’t directly benefit these people’s kids. (And by these people I mean the people who are refusing to pay their fees.)
Like most D64 — and public school parents everywhere, really — I recognize the schools have been forced to operate with less public funding and are looking to “users” (to use a PWD term) to help bridge the gaps. Fundraising is another option but sadly people here in D64 don’t seem willing to donate much to the organizations like ELF and BOPA who are working to help raise funds that will enable kids to have a well rounded, full educational experience.
I’ll repeat: the argument of “why should I help pay for something my kid doesn’t use?” is petty. (The after school program is a different matter, and I think it’s clear that basic school fees do not subsidize that.) When I donate to the band boosters, I do not expect that every single penny go to my own kids. I know that it will be used as efficiently as possible to benefit as many kids as possible and I’m ok with that. The same holds true with fees. It’s not such a hard concept to grasp.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ya think?
“I recognize the schools have been forced to operate with less public funding….” What? The D-64 budget has increased from $44 million in 2004 to $76 million for the current fiscal year. As best as we can tell, inflation for that same 10-year period was nothing close to 73%. So perhaps those fine folks (and we mean that) who bust their butts raising money through ELF and BOPA would accomplish much more if they spent their time attending D-64 Board meetings and holding the Administration accountable for providing kids with “a well rounded, full educational experience” with the money D-64 is taking from the taxpayers, rather than just nibbling around the edges with private fundraising.
And when you “donate to the band boosters” you do so voluntarily; fees charged are not “voluntary” – or let’s say they’re not supposed to be, notwithstanding D-64’s inept collection efforts over the years.
9:18. The teachers come up with supply lists. Presumably they don’t set the fees nor decide how to spend them. And to me that’s a good example of the difference between teachers who are on “the front lines” and administration, who tend to be less clued in on what happens in the classrooms on a daily (or weekly or yearly) basis.
EDITOR’S NOTE: If the administrators aren’t “clued in on what happens in the classrooms” enough to figure out the costs of what’s on the supply lists, those administrators should be fired.
I have noticed that the Park Dist has taken over the after school programs. I do not know if that is due to the complaints about taxpayers subsidizing the childcare programs. Is it not really the same difference having the PD run it?
First of all, I have paid my fees. Also, I am not part of any “group” of scofflaw parents. I could care less if other parents feel the same way as I do. If there is a wrong being done, then I will try to correct it.
I also understand why we are charged property taxes. I understand that some of that money goes to help underprivileged families (your writer’s comment:”George, I hope you’re not serious about wanting to deprive poor kids of lunch or the graduation event! Children need to eat, buddy; and they also need to be encouraged to feel part of the society they live in”) is ridiculous. I was simply trying to explain that we DO NOT KNOW what fees go to and they might go to that. Heck, it might go into paying for the search of a new superintendent. But I guess what irks me is that on this site, many (including the author) resort to name calling rather then really hashing out why anyone is being charged when that service is suppose to be free.
As far as a lawsuit, that will come as soon as there are damages. But why even have it go to that? I see outrage on this site because your readers are upset that parents question that 230 dollars go to pencils and paper per kid. Should we have no recourse? All those complaints for years have fallen on deaf ears, the parents decided to act. You could bet they are listening now. Also, there could be no lawsuit because we do not like the fee. There could only be a lawsuit when you show damages: Such as your child being “punished” or your name published in the paper for non-payment. Therefore since the district has decided for YEARS to ignore those parents, the parents decided to take the next step in this fight. Now this has snowballed into MANY parents doing the same thing–THUS forcing the district to address this issue. Shame we can not have a civil debate and come to an understanding. Oh well.
Thanks, George
P.S. Sorry, I do not know what a midday Rambler is–Even though I am a Rambler (GO LOYOLA ACADEMY!) But something tells me that is not what you meant.
EDITOR’S NOTE: George:
If you have paid your fees then you are not a scofflaw or a freeloader, which puts you on the side of the angels on this point because you are dead right to demand itemization of those fees and an explanation if you are being charged more than D-64’s cost.
What you regard as “name calling” we regard as “shorthand”: according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, a “freeloader” is “a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return.” As in: a parent who doesn’t pay for goods and services provided to his kids by a taxpayer-funded institution. Or would you prefer one of Merriam-Webster’s synonyms, like: “bloodsucker,” “moocher,” or “parasite”?
We agree that you deserve a dollars-and-cents itemization of what you are paying for, and we fault D-64 not only for not having provided it to date but for such arrogance that Ms. Allard has no problem admitting that the fees are “arbitrary.” She might just as well have added: “So what’s it to ya!”
We believe you could file a lawsuit for a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT that the fees you are being charged are unconstitutional and that you need a declaration from the court as to D-64’s rights and your obligations in that regard. You don’t need “damages.”
Frankly, when you quote the Illinois constitution about education being “free” in a way that implies that any fees violate that “free” provision, and then when you say that you don’t want to file a suit – even though you have the right to do so – because D-64 is finally paying attention now that OTHER parents HAVE stopped paying, we start to get the sense that an itemized cost list is just a subterfuge for getting rid of those fees entirely and pushing that cost onto the taxpayers.
Sorry, but we’ve seen this movie before.
You assume irony in a comment linking a kids’ exclusion from key milestone events with a kid feeling — correctly, BTW — that he is being rejected by his society and so owes it nothing? Really?
Let me guess: You think street hooligans’ being lead paint-injesting, impoverished creatures has nothing to do with their misbehavior, right?
EDITOR’S NOTE: We have ALWAYS advocated for helping the truly NEEDY, while condemning the merely greedy. But most of our politicians and ALL of our bureaucrats seem not to see the need for making such a distinction, or undertaking the effort of separating the needy “wheat” from the greedy “chaff.”
Why does Ms. Allard have such a problem coming up with specifics for the fees? If it’s books, then determine the cost of the books, amortize it over the period that book is used by an average number of students using it and you’ve got a number that would likely satisfy the question. What other fees are there? If there are any, cost them out the same way. Doesn’t seem too difficult to me. But then, I’m just a taxpayer.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s right…just because you’re paying for that bureaucratic incompetence doesn’t mean you need to, or can, understand it.
Excuse me for mixing things up here but I just read that 1 of the 2 superintendents has withdrawn from the race over a week ago and the school board was still making comments about him being chosen. They were unaware of his retraction. This is pathetic and shows that D64s right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing. Machak made comment that no D64 members even visited his district. No due diligence here for D64. This story tells a lot about how things are done here, it is pathetic.
http://parkridge.suntimes.com/news/schools/d64update-PRA-01302014:article
EDITOR’S NOTE: We can’t tell exactly what happened from the H-A article, and it doesn’t seem like D-64 has any interest in explaining any of this to the folks who pay for all of it – at least not until AFTER the hiring of Ms. Heinz becomes a “done deal” with salary and other terms locked in and the taxpayers stuck with what could be a multi-year contract at a cost higher than for Bender.
http://parkridge.suntimes.com/news/schools/fees64-PRA-01302014:article
EDITOR’S NOTE: FINALLY! That’s the kind of action we can get when our newspapers start blowing the whistle on this kind of stuff rather than letting a bunch of bureaucrats ignore it.
And it sounds like a shout-out to Pres. Tony Borrelli may be in order, if his reported quotes are any indication of who lit the fire under the sleeping bureaucrats and mopey board members who had let fees remain uncollected for two and three years – and who STILL can’t understand why people DESERVE an itemized statement for the fees they are paying.
It was not Borrelli who brought all this to light.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We didn’t say he “brought all this to light,” just that he might have pushed the bureaucrats to start collecting.
Accountability is crucial. That’s one thing — perhaps THE one thing — on which we can all agree, non?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Oui et non. Transparency generally is a prerequisite for accountability, and closed session meetings – by definition – limit or preclude transparency. Accordingly, those closed session meetings also limit or preclude accountability.
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>