In stark contrast to another elected official, rookie school board member Laura Petelle demonstrates the kind of transparency and accessibility the public expects from their representatives in the 21st century. She invites dialog with her constituents, she shares pertinent information in a timely manner, and she explains her votes (proving that she has thought them through and is not making knee-jerk decisions). And she does it on the internet where the info is easily accessible to all.
That’s the way it ought to be. Even if you don’t agree with her vote, at least you understand her argument and appreciate the effort she’s gone through to make a good, conscientious decision she believes is in the best interests of her constituents and the district at large.
In today’s post, she’s talking about the closing of a high school. She’s probably going to vote to close Woodruff. Fellow board member Jim Stowell has indicated his desire to see Peoria High close instead. No doubt it will be a split vote, and who knows which way it will go? Billy Dennis is predicting Woodruff will be closed on a 4-3 vote. We’ll all find out on Monday, September 21.
In the meantime, hop over to Laura’s blog and read her reasoning. It’s a perfectly logical decision, and I applaud her for her transparency. However, I do have a couple of questions. (Don’t I always?)
- PBC Funds: Petelle states that one of the reasons they must close a high school is that “there are issues relating to the PBC bonds that will provide a further $25 to $30 million in bonding authority for our District.” Basically, if they don’t close a high school, they don’t get that additional funding. However, there’s another requirement in order to utilize those bonds: the supporting document Petelle provides states, “Final planning, however, is dependent upon the need for the District to identify the projects.” Yes, I too would like to know on what they plan to spend that additional funding, if they were to get it. First, I’d like to know why they need to spend it at all. If they need to cut the number of facilities, and if our building capacity exceeds our enrollment, and if the school district is in a structural deficit, I don’t see the justification for taking on more debt. Is it just so they can max out the PBC funding limit and keep our taxes high? If there is no clear project needing funds, then it looks like they’re just spending the money for the sake of spending it, and that doesn’t sound like it’s in the best interests of the taxpayers.
- Torts: One of Petelle’s commenters (“Jon” — who might be the same “Jon” who comments on the Chronicle) made a shocking observation. He looked at the 2009-2010 Tentative Budget that Petelle put up on her site and asked, “What is the TORT category? …It has an expected deficit of nearly $4.1MM compared to only $900k the prior year. Its expenditures increased from $6.1MM to $8.6MM while at the same time its revenue fell from $5.2MM to $4.5MM.” Laura responded that it is the “tort lawsuit fund.” I just happen to have received recently (courtesy of the Freedom of Information Act) a list of pending lawsuits against District 150. By my count, there are 83 total. I haven’t surveyed other school districts to see how this compares, but at first blush this number sounds very high to me. Given the impact this is having on the district’s bottom line, this issue really should be investigated. What is causing all these lawsuits? Is there a common thread? Can anything be done to reduce their occurrence?
“Some candidates would not take the position if they felt that their first decision was of this magnitude”
And we would want to hire that candidate why? I want to hire someone who can come in with an objective point of view and make a decision not based on Robert Michel’s Alma Mater, or some disgruntled son trying to get back at his dad, or whatever personal reasons are being put into this argument.
I agree that it would take a person with courage to take this position knowing their first decision would be to close a school… BUT ISN’T THAT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR? What is the point of paying someone more than a $1,000,000 to just come in and stare at “what a mess” they have just walked in to.
Thanks for the kind words, CJ.
I’ve forwarded your questions on to people I hope will have answers. I think the second will be easier to answer than the first, which may require assembling information from more people, and more speculative sorts of answering. I’ll post the answers over at my blog, if you don’t mind, and you can go ahead and append them here too if you’d like.
-Laura
Good luck re-arranging the Titanic’s deck chairs. I gave up on 150. My kid’s in private school starting this year. His grades were fair but now they are skyrocketing and he’s doing tougher work.
Vouchers.
Part of me wants to keep all of the high schools open and just restructure the way admins and such are allocated, but another part of me says, “Just pick a da** school and close it already! Quit playing with everyone’s emotions and nerves.” Nothing like using the students, their families, and the community as a whole as pawns in a pissing match! I’m glad that Laura is trying to be honest with us and give us her reasons. So far, all the others have been quite mum on their reasons which leads me to believe that they aren’t based on research but emotion and bitterness. We need a school board that is going to make hard decisions that are based on current research studies and not the whims of current adminstrators. They need to ask questions and DEMAND accurate answers. Answers that are backed up by numbers and validity.
My kids deserve to know if their senior year is going to be filled with security issues and discipline issues. I deserve to know that my kids will be safe if we combine 2 high schools. Adding more security is NOT the answer!!!! I want to know what my options will be for my students/children if their safety is compromised in regards to transferring schools. As it stands now, if D150 closes 1 school and merges it with another, IHSA rules are not violated. BUT if my student/children are in anyway put in harm’s way at said merged schools and I transfer them to RHS or PND they will have to sit out for a year! I am not particularly pleased with the concept of keeping them in an unsafe environment for their last year in school so they don’t have to sit out their senior year because our illustrious district can’t think about the repercussions before they make decisions.
To me, it appears that the district is only concerned with the monetary savings (of which their have been no hard and fast numbers provided for the schools that have already been closed) and has very little regard for the needs of the students.
Just my rant.
I agree with BAM. I am willing to bet that closing a high school will not save the district any money. First of all, they believe that most of the money will come from cutting teachers. The teachers they cut will be at the low end of the salary schedule–so they probably won’t be saving as much as they have stated. Secondly, they are probably underestimating how many teachers will be needed to teach the students who will be sent to the other three high schools–unless they can get away with increasing class size considerably. Thirdly, I believe that the money saved will be spent on some other pet project or program or consultant. Fourth, how much will be spent to maintain the unoccupied building? That amount will reduce the projected amount to be saved. Thus far, there is no specified use for the unoccupied building–Hinton has stated that it won’t be used for the younger children (as he had planned). He just casually mentioned that the “left behind building” could be used for a vocational and/or alternative school. When will that decision be made? How long will the building be unoccupied?
Re Lawsuits. In looking at the suits it is pretty clear that the vast majority are Workers Compensation claims. The number doesn’t strike me as inordinately high given the size of the District and the number of employees of all stripe.
“The number doesn’t strike me as inordinately high”
Interesting. You must think that these suits are scams on the part of lazy, slacker employees… if they were legitimate, wouldn’t 150 be eager to pay them off? (or is it a problem with their Insurance Company?)
bamcdaniel: You are correct in there not being concrete evidence of the money saved for closed buildings. I’ve been asking for that for awhile and it doesn’t seem to be available. Somehow, someone picks a number as the amount of savings from a building. Then, a vote is taken and buildings are closed. I think the amount they used last year for Tyng and Kingman was $2.7 million or so. How was it figured? The teachers from Kingman were all placed in schools throughout the district (except for one part-time teacher). Where is the savings coming from? Why can’t they produce documents supporting the statetment of savings?
I can’t imagine being a parent of a junior at one of those high schools. Senior year is supposed to be such a special year and the uncertainty which is present right now is unfair and just plain stinks!
KCDad – thanks for letting me know what I think…
In actual response to your comment, KCDad, no I think no such thing.
When one looks at the WC cases present on the arbitration calls the numbers simply don’t seem to show a significant number of Dist 150 matters.
For instance, on the upcoming arbitration call for Peoria on Sept. 21 there are 105 pages of cases listed, that is 1873 cases. Of those, District 150 is the employer in 18. As I understand it, the District has approximately 3,000 employees. I believe that Methodist Medical Center is an employer of very similar size – approximately 2,500 employees. On the Sept. 21 Peoria arbitration call I see that, in an amazing coincidence, Methodist is the employer named in 18 cases.
I think the number of WC cases seems significant considering the non-industrial setting of 150. As the employer of 2500 employees and 8 union groups, I do not think the other cases listed seem that numerous. It is interesting that a number of the suits listed have been brought by the PFT, some of which appear to takes issue with management changes, i.e. tuition reimbursement, class size. No wonder some find charter schools appealing.
I would also like to see a listing of the number of pending grievances by the various unions and any unfair labor practices charges pending. Are those on a separate list or do none exist? At one time, it was almost a full-time job responding to union grievances, the number was so large.
Frustrated: You say that the WC cases seem significant, considering the non-industrial setting of 150. You forget about the fights that teachers frequently have to break up. One of our teachers suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized. I was prone to falling and each time the principal had to ask if I wanted to file a WC claim (by law, I believe they have to do so). I don’t think I ever filed a claim. I have never thought about it before, but does the district have to pay for WC claims? I assume that teachers injured on the job can claim the WC benefits instead of using the district insurance–which should save the district money??? I am sure my ignorance on this subject is showing, so someone can clear it up for me.
Also, Frustrated, do you want your child to go to a school where class size can be increased at whim to save money for the school?
No need to correct my statements about WC–Terry Knapp just straightened my thinking out. The district does have to pay more for WC insurance based on the number of claims.
Spikeless, common sense tells me that it would be apples and oranges to compare hospital claims to school district claims.
Diane – how so?
if they were legitimate, wouldn’t 150 be eager to pay them off? (or is it a problem with their Insurance Company?)
What’s the problem here?
I found a little more detail on the TORT fund by looking at last year’s budget in more detail, as found on the District website. Last year, here’s how the $6.1MM broke down:
$2.4MM for what I believe was “security” (mostly salaries)
$1.5MM for Insurance Payments
$1.9MM for claims paid from the self insurance fund (classified as “employee benefits”)
$350k for legal services
The first question is — insurance and self insurance claims paid for what? Initially I was thinking it’s for liability only (thus TORT) and not at all to do with WC (very different than tort claims) but with the way it’s classified as employee benefits, it may well be that the District self insures for WC.
The real question, though, is why the $2.5MM increase over last year?
Spikeless, common sense tells me that it would be apples and oranges to compare hospital claims to school district claims….
Jon – two words – KEN HINTON
I am certainly no expert in financial matters, but I believe I have heard that the increase in WC had something to do with why Cahill was fired.
WC “insurance” is entirely different than any other type of insurance.
Let’s say you are starting up a new company.
The first year’s WC premiums will be an estimate based upon how much $ amount in claims the insurer estimates for you, plus their admin costs to take care of any/all claims. Let’s say they estimate $1000 in total costs. You then pay $1000 for the first year’s premium.
After the first year year in business, you actually had $2000 in claims (losses). You will be billed for the extra $1000 that you didn’t already purchase and your second year premium might be around $2000 (or even slightly above) based upon your “experience”.
If you experience zero claims that first year, you may get a “rebate” of $500 towards your second year’s premium. You don’t get the money back, you get a credit.
This back and forth premium adjustment will continue every year. This is the simple explanation of how WC insurance works.
My name is TJ Martin and I am a parent of 2 students at Peoria High. We are trying to raise support to keep PHS open. The Board of District 150 will be voting this coming Monday, Sept 21st on closing the school. If you are like us and do not want to see the school close, please send an email right away to
savehighschools@yahoo.com
We will then forward all the supporting emails to the Board. We need to have a strong voice against the closing of the schools in Peoria. Please help us make our voice ring loud. Thank you for your help.
A Concerned Parent & Citizen
TJ Martin
mdd! “(or even slightly above)” that’s pretty funny. Are you in the insurance business?
You first suggested that out of a $1000 premium there would be $500 in administrative costs… (if there are no losses you would get a $500 credit towards next year’s premium)… and then say if you had MORE losses than anticipated, you would just have your premium raised by the amount of your losses… WHAT A NICE INSURANCE COMPANY. I think I’ll predict 0 costs this year… that way the insurance company will pay whatever losses I have, and I will just pay them back next year.
“(or even slightly above)” THAT’S hilarious! Why above? Punishment?
“This back and forth premium adjustment will continue” Doesn’t sound sound like there’s much “back” in that “back and forth”.
The District Watch group will be meeting at Godfather’s at 6 p.m. on Sunday, September 20–of course, the closing of a high school is high on the agenda.
The District Watch group will be meeting at Godfather’s at 6 p.m. on Sunday, September 20–of course, the closing of a high school is high on the agenda. Everyone is welcome.
kcdad: The insurance company, thru a set of guidelines provided by the state, sets the work comp risks and that’s how you get the price. When my partner and I ran a computer company, we were shocked to find out our 1st year premiums were based on a high risk due to the fact that our techs would be driving to customer sites. With no claims our first year, we received a rather nice discount for year 2.
So the risk you had the first year didn’t exist the second year? You don’t see that you were scammed….
“provided by the state” or provided TO the state from the insurance companies
kcdad: you apparently don’t get it. Work Comp is not insurance in the traditional sense.
A company truly pays for their own claims, although not immediately. A work comp insurance company simply administers (and takes some risk that you may go out of business) your expenses for work comp. This is why companies are so reluctant to hire people that have a history of filing work comp claims.
I don’t get it. I don’t want it.
The reason companies are reluctant to hire people with WC claims is they don’t give a crap about their employees and they don’t want anyone forcing them to make their workplaces safe. Asbestos? To hell with that!
kcdad: you are wrong again. Employers don’t want to hire people with a history of WC claims because there is a rather large group of people that routinely file “iffy” claims hoping to get the “big settlement” check. My wife previously worked for one of the major WC insurers as an adjuster. You really would not believe what goes on and how many claims are filed by a relatively small amount of the populace. Falls and back injuries that have no witnesses are so common. She routinely dispatched private investigators who then video taped these poor victims of the ruthless corporate world doing things they claimed they couldn’t do.
Her personal favorite is a guy who had a history of working less than a week at a new job, (multiple times from multiple jobs) who claimed disabling back injures every time and had received settlements. She ended up catching him riding a motorcross bike in his own yard while pretending to be confined to a wheelchair. His lawyer immediately dropped the lawsuit when presented with the video evidence of the miracle cure his client apparently had.
SO you ARE presuming that how ever many claims 150 has is not many because they are probably “iffy” claims.
Isn’t that what I asked earlier?
They dropped the claim. Did any one sue this guy for fraud?
No, I am not presuming anything about the claims in D150.
Yes, in that instance the claim was dropped – and that person was prosecuted for attempted WC fraud.
Your quote:
“The reason companies are reluctant to hire people with WC claims is they don’t give a crap about their employees and they don’t want anyone forcing them to make their workplaces safe. Asbestos? To hell with that!”
Not true at all. Companies want a safe workplace because the WC claims really are their own costs. There isn’t some “insurance company” that pays – it is the company that actually pays the costs for WC injuries.