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.”