The Controller-Treasurer for Peoria Public School District 150 is Guy Cahill. His contract, which took effect in February 2005, expires June 30, 2008. Renewal of Cahill’s contract was on the agenda for the last school board meeting, but at the last minute was removed from the agenda, so no vote was taken. I have no idea why that happened, but since we have some extra time to consider Cahill’s performance, let’s look at the performance goals in his 2005-2008 contract.

[Section 1] d) This Contract shall be a performance-based contract. The Controller-Treasurer, Deputy Superintendent and School Board shall mutually agree to financial improvement goals to enhance student performance and academic improvement, the goals shall be attributable to the responsibilities and duties of the Controller-Treasurer. The goals shall be attached to and become a part of this Contract as Appendix A. One goal shall be the removal of the School District from the Illinois State Board of Education Financial Watch List by June 30, 2006 It is understood that the attainment of this goal is not solely within the power of the Controller and the attainment of this goal will be judged based upon the efforts of the Controller-Treasurer to attain this goal and not necessarily upon the actual removal of the School District from the Financial Watch List within the time period.

And here are the performance goals as listed in Appendix A:

1. Develop FY’06 Budget and present in a meaningful way for use by management as a decision-making tool; include, as necessary, “other sources” of funds to ameliorate expenditures exceeding revenues.
2. Streamline and organize general ledger to facilitate improved reporting to the Board.
3. Restructure depository and bank accounts to improve efficiencies and reconcilement.
4. Provide periodic reports to the Board including statements of position, budget to actual, and cash flows.
5. Develop long-range budget projections including revenue and expenditure estimates.
6. Facilitate Structural Budget Imbalance Task Force work.
7. Develop and implement necessary short-term financing strategy to address cash flow concerns and shore-up reserves.
8. Provide leadership in developing and negotiating wage and benefit components of collective bargaining agreements.
9. Develop a system and/or train staff individual to monitor compliance with state and federal grants and review the same for propriety.

I’m not going to go through each of these line by line, but I do want to point out some information that’s available through the Illinois State Board of Education’s website — that is, District 150’s audits. In the June 30, 2007, audit (large Excel file), there is a section called “Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs,” and it includes these statements:

In an ideal control setting, the District would have personnel possessing a thorough understanding of applicable generally accepted accounting principles staying abreast of recent accounting developments. Such personnel would perform a comprehensive review procedure to ensure that in the preparation of its annual financial statements that such statements, including disclosures, are complete and accurate. […] The District has not made it a practice to send District officials or other personnel to training classes to update them on the on-going changes and complexities of generally accepted accounting principles.

That’s pretty serious. But there’s more; this finding is listed as a “repeat from prior year,” meaning it was identified before but has not been resolved:

The overall internal controls over the District’s accounting system are not adequate to ensure that misstatements caused by error or fraud, in amounts that would be material to the financial statements, may occur and not be detected wtihin a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. […] Reconciliation of many of the general ledger accounts to the underlying supporting documentation was not performed during the year (accounts receivable, payroll withholding liabilities, miscellaneous asset and liability accounts). […] Significant errors and/or omissions were not discovered by District employees and corrections were not made to the general ledger until the annual audit was performed at the end of the fiscal year. This resulted in inaccurate financial information being recorded in the general ledger for most of the year.

And, this was concerning as well, also a repeat from the prior year:

The District did not submit accurate [project] expenditure reports. Some expenditures claimed were either non-allowable, misclassified, reported inaccurately, or required additional documentation to trace to the underlying general ledger accounts. Total expenditures as reported on the project completion report were greater than total expenditures on the general ledger.

In the 2006 audit, there was a grant compliance problem. “The district claimed more administrative costs than were allowable on the Reading First grant.” Specifically, “The District claimed $20,577 of general administration expenditures,” but “allowable general administrative expenditures should have been $16,556” — a difference of $4,021.

This year, things have gotten worse regarding federal grant compliance. You may recall that District 150 spent $681,000 in Title I funds that the state said were not allowable. And District 150 is still very much on the financial watch list.

I think it’s worth asking how much of this is the responsibility of the Controller-Treasurer, and how much he should be held accountable for these (what I consider to be serious) problems which seem to be ongoing and increasing in severity. I trust the school board is doing just that, and perhaps that’s why the contract renewal was removed from the agenda.

I’m writing this open thread in advance of the school board meeting and scheduling it to appear after the meeting is over. What are your thoughts about how the meeting went?

Peoria Public Schools Superintendent Ken Hinton’s employment contract comes up for renewal at Monday night’s school board meeting. No doubt it will be approved. But how good of a job do you think he’s doing?

Hinton’s current (2007-2008) contract includes some specific performance goals for the 2007-2008 School Year. They are included in “Addendum B.”

ADDENDUM B
Superintendent’s Goals
2007-2008 School Year

1. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
   1. Increase the percentage of students making AYP and decrease the number of schools not making AYP
   2. Complete and implement the Restructuring Plan for Manual High School
   3. Identify what the Achievement Gap is in District 150 and develop strategies to address the gap as it pertains to race and class
   4. During the year, put together a team to address the over-identification of minority students and delivery of service for special education
   5. Put a team together and implement strategies to improve the academic performance, programs and structures of the high schools
2. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
   1. Meet budget projections to stay on target for balancing the budget
3. QUALITY STAFF
   1. Develop a performance based evaluation instrument for central and building administrators
4. SAFE, CARING ENVIRONMENTS
   1. Develop a plan for the Board and achieve community consensus for an alternative school
5. CULTURE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE
   1. Develop for all staff a series of professional development opportunities on improving customer service
   2. Develop a communications plan to improve the District’s image in the community

Obviously, I would have no way of knowing if he’s met all of these goals since several of them deal with the internal workings of the district. Nevertheless, since he’s a public servant (and the highest paid one in Peoria, City Councilman Bill Spears reminded us recently), I think it’s fair for the public that pays his salary to assess him on the basis of what we do know.

So, starting at the top (1.1), has the percentage of students making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) increased in the 2007-2008 school year? Well, we don’t know yet, because school test results generally come out in the fall. However, those test results are public information once they are released, so we can look at past performance. From 2005 to 2007, the percentage of students meeting and exceeding standards has indeed increased a little each year:

Even though the overall scores are up, in order for the district to meet AYP, “they must achieve the goals in all eight of the sub groups – White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, LEP, Students with Disabilities and Economically disadvantaged,” according to District 150 Director of Research Bryan Chumbley at the Sept. 17, 2007, school board meeting.

Mr. Chumbley reported on the progress of the District, we did not make AYP for the fourth consecutive year. Five out of eight subgroups are making AYP in reading and 7 out of 8 subgroups are making AYP in mathematics. The district saw modest increases in five subgroups in reading and modest increases in seven subgroups in math.

What about the second part of that goal? Has the number of schools not making AYP decreased? Well, yes, but not because the schools started making AYP. Rather, it’s because the school board has simply been closing failing schools. This year, they closed Loucks (which hasn’t been meeting AYP), so voila! The number of schools not making AYP decreases by one. Quite an ingenious way of meeting that part of the goal.

Goal 1.2 has to do with the Manual High School restructuring plan. That’s been completed and implemented, so that goal is met.

If Hinton has done anything about goals 1.3 through 1.5, it must all be internal, since I’ve seen no information on those items being reported in the press, and I’ve heard of no call to the public to be involved on any of the teams he’s tasked with putting together.

Goal 2 regards fiscal responsibility. Because of a projected loss of $1.4 million in revenue, Hinton had to come up with a way to “meet budget projections.” He decided to do it by (1) closing Loucks Edison, (2) cutting the school day for primary students, and (3) delaying the purchase of new school buses.

Goal 3 is also internal.

Regarding goal 4, is anyone aware of any plan or “community consensus” for an alternative school? I can’t find anything using the terminology of “alternative school,” but perhaps this goal is being met by Hinton’s research into charter schools or a math/science academy for the Renaissance Park area. Still, even if there is some study or planning going on, there’s certainly no “community consensus.”

Ah, goal 5, a “culture of customer service.” One of the things that has gotten lumped under here over the past year is the Pacific Institute training. Freedom of Information Act requests also get reported under this heading at each school board meeting. But it’s clear that Hinton has created no communications plan at all, let alone one that “improve[s] the District’s image in the community.”

And that last point is Hinton’s biggest downfall. If there were better communication, if parents felt like their concerns were seriously being considered, and if a spirit of collaboration existed between the board, the administration, and the parents, I think most of any superintendent’s weak points could be looked upon with more grace. But when parents are treated like adversaries, they start acting like adversaries. No one wins in that scenario; and the ones who suffer the biggest loss are the children.

So, let’s see that communication plan, Mr. Hinton. And please give it to us directly — not through the press. Direct talks would be a really good first step.