Category Archives: Peoria Public Schools

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission, State Legislation

District 150 & the Public Building Commission, Part 1

1 Comment

Do you think District 150 should be allowed to raise your taxes without a referendum?

If not, you’ll want to pay attention to this story. It’s not online, unfortunately, so here’s a lengthy quote from Clare Jellick’s story in the 10/3/2006 Journal Star titled, “Senator fighting Governor’s veto,” subhead, “Shadid supports bill for school construction”:

PEORIA — State Sen. George Shadid wants to override the Governor’s amendatory veto of a bill that benefits District 150, the senator said Monday.

The bill, originally sponsored by Shadid, allows the district to ask the Peoria Public Building Commission to issue bonds for school construction. The district plans to repay the bonds by restructuring its property tax levy, but the governor doesn’t want this method used without voter approval.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich considers this funding structure as raising taxes; District 150 does not, and Shadid is prepared to fight against the veto.

“(The School Board) is elected by the people in this community, so I’m going to take their word for it that they’re not going to raise taxes,” said Shadid, who initially supported the governor’s proposed changes.

The debate is over what’s considered raising taxes. The district intends to replace old bonds with new bonds, meaning that the tax rate will stay the same, but people will be paying the rate longer. If the district issued no new bonds, the tax rate would drop gradually starting next year.

The old bonds would be paid off completely by 2012. The district is proposing that the rate continue until 2015 at the earliest and 2020 at the latest.

“Could (taxpayers) enjoy a tax reduction without this (legislation)? The answer is clearly yes, but the school district clearly needs to build, and it needs to borrow to do it,” district treasurer Guy Cahill said Monday.

The School Board passed a resolution Monday to cap the tax rate, which is enough assurance for Shadid. He intends to use this during the fall veto session to make his case for the override.

“I feel comfortable with them giving me this resolution that they’re not going to raise the rate,” Shadid said.

[The Governor still stands by his amendatory veto.]

The soonest the amendment could be considered is November. A majority vote in both houses is needed to accept the change. A super-majority (three-fifths vote) in both houses would override Blagojevich’s veto and make the original version of the bill law.

A couple of comments are in order here. First, the school board passed a resolution saying they would cap the tax rate, and that’s enough assurance for Shadid that they won’t raise taxes. There are two obvious problems with this:

  1. The school board changes over time; just because this school board promises to do something doesn’t mean it can’t be overridden by a later board. And, of course, there’s nothing preventing this school board from reneging, either.
  2. Whether or not they promised a rate cap completely misses the point. The tax rate is supposed to go down starting next year. If it doesn’t, then the school board is clearly raising our taxes; Cahill even admitted it. The point is that tax increases such as this should be approved by the voters — you know, the ones who have to pay the taxes.

Secondly, Cahill claims “the school district clearly needs to build.” Oh? Kind of like they “clearly” needed to close Blaine-Sumner Middle School (built in 1927) because the building was so decrepit, yet once it was closed they were somehow miraculously able to immediately rehabilitate it for use as district offices, even adding air conditioning? If this was one of the worst (and since it was one of the first schools to be closed, we can only assume it was), then I’d say their schools aren’t in as bad of shape as we’ve been led to believe.

No, it’s not at all clear that the district needs to build. It’s crystal clear that they want to build. The fact that the district is trying to find a way around the voters only shows they are so certain the public won’t buy it, they’re not even going to attempt a referendum. Rather than go through the difficult work of proving their “need” for new buildings and the funding for them, then pursuading the public to pass a referendum, they’d rather pick taxpayers’ pockets.

And that’s what Senate Bill 2477, without the Governor’s amendatory veto, will allow them to do: pick our pockets. But why has the Illinois General Assembly been in favor of this bill in the first place? And what are the odds they’ll be able to override the Governor’s veto? I’ll explore some possible answers in my next post.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

More false hope from District 150?

5 Comments

Clare Jellick reports in the Journal Star today:

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton won’t continue buying properties near Glen Oak Park until he has time to talk to neighborhood groups and City Council members, he said Monday.

Hinton told the School Board Monday that he had originally intended to bring forth a recommendation at that meeting, but “for now that’s not going to take place.”

“I just want to talk to (people) and let them know where we are and what we’re thinking,” Hinton said after Monday’s meeting.

The implication is that Hinton is still trying to work out a compromise with the city and East Bluff neighbors. But if the last two counterproposals he offered the city are any indication, it’s likely this will simply be another attempt to pursuade everyone that putting the school next to a park is the best idea in education since the Dewey Decimal System.

But I’ll try to suppress my suspicion until I hear “where [they] are and what [they’re] thinking.” Maybe he’ll surprise us all.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Letter to District 150 School Board and Peoria Park Board

I received the following as a comment to my blog and as an e-mail, and feel it’s worthy of its own post. If you agree with this letter, I encourage you to send it to school board and park board members as suggested:

This is a letter compiled by some East Bluff residents regarding the placement of the new school into the Park. If you still respect our position; are still willing to back us, please copy and send this letter to all Park/School board members listed below before Monday night’s School Board meeting. The School and Park Board state that they have not received e-mails from constituants disagreeing with their position. Wouldn’t you think that public comment during school and park board meetings would be enough…apparantly not.

Please include your name at the bottom of this letter….thank you for your help regarding this issue.

tcassidy@cassidymueller.com
rpallen4@insightbb.com
sbudzinski@aol.com
robertjohnsonsr@sbcglobal.net
petty7@aol.com
pcwrt2004@yahoo.com
david.gorenz@psd150.org
martha.ross@psd150.org
alicia.butler@psd150.org
sean.matheson@psd150.org
mary.spangler@psd150.org
jim.stowell@psd150.org
debbie.wolfmeyer@psd150.org

The City of Peoria adopted the Heart of Peoria Plan, which states on page 13 that a school should be in the center of the community which it services. The way the Glen Oak School situation was handled from Day One, there has not been a full study done examining the cost of renovating and adding to the existing school site, compared to building a new school. Based solely on a preliminary study and letter of intent between the two boards, over $800,000.00 has already been spent acquiring adjacent properties, prior to either board having a signed legal agreement. Additional funds have already been spent with architectural firms designing a facility with only consideration of new construction at the new location, not revitalizing or new construction at the existing location. Neither board approached the citizens within the area covered, requesting input on the location of the new school. Both the City and the citizens have presented several workable footprint alternatives at the existing location. It is our contention, that thus far, the elected officials of both the District 150 School Board and the Peoria Park District Board, have no consideration for the position taken by its constituents on this matter. All direction has come from subordinate appointed staff members. The following have stated, both written and verbally, the dissatisfaction of placing this school within the boundaries of Glen Oak Park: Illinois State Senator George Shadid, U.S. Congressman Ray LaHood, City of Peoria (both Mayor and most Council), Peoria Fire Department, Peoria Police Department, Neighborhood Alliance, East Bluff United Neighborhood Association, Glen Oak Neighborhood Association, East Bluff Serenity Neighborhood Association, Gift Avenue Neighborhood Association, and East Bluff Housing Services. We, the citizens within the District 150 and Park District boundaries, request this situation be terminated by both District 150 School Board and Peoria Park District Board. Although there are many individual reasons not to put the new school at the park location, we feel the main concerns of ALL citizens is the protection of the children who will attend this school. Due to the busy Prospect, Frye, and Abingdon intersection, additional crossing guards will be required. The park location will continue to require additional costs exemplified by the busing of additional students. The busing will require additional buses, drivers, fuel, maintenance, and bus monitors. The City Police Department will need to provide additional protection due to the access to the bordering park area. Known sex offenders will be able to go into the adjacent park, zoo, and amphitheater. Should the school be required to have a major lock-down, the zoo, Children’s Museum and play area will also be required to go down to lock-down status. The continued loss of assets — Sunken Garden, Palm House, Log Cabin, Train, etc — is also a concern. This proposed school will further limit and cause public usage to diminish. Although the School District has suggested that there will be no loss of property by the park district, we have been told that only the parking lot will be utilized by both facilities. Where do you propose to put all the vehicles of the employees of both facilities? Nothing has been said regarding the requirements of movement of the park maintenance facility. The park belongs to ALL the Peoria tax paying citizens. If the proposed school is constructed, the bus and other traffic will increase. Will the East Street be relocated on park land, further reducing already limited park space? With the planned zoo expansion, along with the Children’s Museum, open free green-space will be unavailable to the public. Your consideration on this very important and sensitive matter will be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,
The Concerned Citizens of Peoria

Peoria Journal Star, Peoria Public Schools

Impress with success, not new buildings

2 Comments

I understand the sentiment behind the Journal Star’s recent editorial about District 150. They say, “Somewhere in this debate, those children got lost. It is time for Peoria to find them again, for its own sake.”

I totally agree with that sentiment; I really do. I want to see the community pull together and provide the best possible education for our children. I think everyone wants that. But the editorial board’s prescription is a placebo. They whitewash over the serious issues that have led to the “general unpopularity” of the school’s decisions.

They say, “Hinton and his board have a mandate to try and rescue a declining school district,” and, “With this new school and others, they’re trying to do that.” This is the crux of the problem. What the editorial writers have stated is not the school board’s mandate, nor are the school board’s actions the way to achieve either this or their real mandate. Allow me to quote the oath of office each school board member must take before taking his or her seat on the board (105 ILCS 5/10‑16.5):

I, (name of member or successful candidate), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of member of the Board of Education of Peoria Public School District 150, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and the laws of the State of Illinois, to the best of my ability.

I further swear (or affirm) that:

  • I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets;
  • I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees;
  • I shall recognize that a board member has no legal authority as an individual and that decisions can be made only by a majority vote at a public board meeting; and
  • I shall abide by majority decisions of the board, while retaining the right to seek changes in such decisions through ethical and constructive channels.

That is the school board’s real mandate. I would submit that one reason residents are up in arms over the school board is because they’ve failed in this aspect: “I shall respect taxpayer interests by serving as a faithful protector of the school district’s assets.”

How do the school board’s recent actions stack up against this part of the oath? They did not do due diligence in assessing the rehabilitation possibilities of their current property (viz., Glen Oak School) before they decided to build a new school on a different site (adjacent to Glen oak Park). Thus, they started spending taxpayer money on property acquisition, architects and planners without verifying a new building or additional property were warranted in the first place. They have changed the scope of their project from building a replacement school to building a community center, which has added $7 million more to the projected cost of construction. They have taken a building (Blaine-Sumner Middle School) that was slated for closure and sale to save the district money and, instead of disposing of the property as outlined in their own Master Facilities Plan, have rehabilitated it for use as an office building. These are not examples of faithfully protecting the school district’s assets.

So they’re not fulfilling their real mandate, but they’re not even fulfilling the editorial writers’ mandate. Building new school buildings is not going to “rescue a declining school district.” Sorry. Whittier was built in 1914 and is a model school, earning awards and making adequate yearly progress. Sterling was built in 1962 and is on Academic Watch Status.

But here’s what’s really strange. Whenever I mention that there is no correlation between the age of buildings and test scores, I’m always told that no one is claiming that building a new school will improve student performance. So, why build, then? What’s the purpose? Read the editorial writers carefully on this point:

To the degree that the condition of a city’s school facilities makes a statement about the value locals place on their children and their educations, Peoria does not stack up well against other Illinois communities. If there is one thing Peoria really can’t afford in a competitive environment, it’s to leave that impression.

Did you catch it? The key word is “impression.” We need to spend all this money so that we give the impression that we “locals” value our children and their education. Who cares if they actually are educated? Maybe we can fool those out-of-towners into relocating here if we blind them with our shiny buildings in the park.

That’s not a good enough justification for spending $22 million (plus $2-3 more million in acquisition/demolition costs). And it certainly doesn’t constitute finding “those children [who] got lost” in the debate. If we want to find the children, we need to start focusing on root problems instead of secondary issues like new school buildings. If we want to attract people to the city, we need to impress them with our school report cards and high test scores — then when they start moving back into town we’ll have the money to build those shiny new schools.

Peoria Public Schools

Casual Comment

5 Comments

Just a reminder of when the District 150 School Board members’ terms expire:
Peoria Public Schools logo

Alicia Butler 2007
Sean Matheson 2007
Martha Ross 2008
Mary Spangler 2009
David Gorenz 2010
Jim Stowell 2011
Debbie Wolfmeyer 2011

Within the next three years, over half the board could change. It’s something to think about.

Peoria Public Schools

Renovation never seriously considered for Glen Oak School

1 Comment

The Word on the Street column today has an interesting segment on the need for a new building in District 150’s Woodruff attendance area:

The biggest question that taxpayers should demand an answer to is this: Does District 150 know for sure it needs a new building?

Because, according to Hinton himself, the district only did a preliminary review of whether the school could cost-effectively be renovated.

“Glen Oak had a preliminary one, but not a final one,” Hinton said Friday.

Did you catch that? The school district has purchased eight houses at over $800,000, hired planners and architects to start designing a new school, made overtures to the park district toward a land-sharing agreement, etc., etc., and they’ve only done a preliminary review of whether the current Glen Oak School could cost-effectively be renovated.

If that sounds familiar, it could be because on April 19th, I took an in-depth look at the basis for the school district’s building plan, and concluded the same thing:

Yet, based on this “analysis,” the [Master Facilities Plan] report confidently concludes (emphasis mine): “The District has or will soon have the necessary match of funds derived both from available restricted reserves and the sale of a health-life-safety bond (for the replacement of a minimum of two and as many as six buildings the cost of which to remediate is greater than the cost of replacement).”

The report gives no justification for the statement in bold.

Nowhere in the report do they give a breakdown of what it would cost to renovate/expand the current buildings versus what it would cost to do a new construction (including acquisition, demolition, legal, and other hidden costs). There’s no feasibility study. All they’ve really done is identified which schools they feel (subjectively) are in greatest need of repair. That’s no basis upon which to start tearing down schools and building new ones on different sites.

Five months later, Mr. Hinton has confirmed my conclusions. I wonder when Hinton, et. al., were planning to do a “final” review. After the new school was completely built, perhaps? And what are they planning to do if it turns out the result is, “Well I’ll be dogged, I guess it is more cost-effective to renovate this building”? Will they renovate it and turn it into another office building, like they did with Blaine-Sumner Middle School?

What happened to the district’s efforts to save money? That’s how this whole thing started, you know. Closing 11 schools and building 6 new ones was supposed to save the district a bundle of money. Yet cost estimates for the new school in the Woodruff attendance area are already $7 million over budget, property acquisition costs are already over budget, and the $500,000 they were supposed to save by closing Blaine-Sumner has evaporated as they’ve instead put money into renovating it and keeping it open as an office building.

This is no way to run a school district, folks.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Did Hinton act without authority?

18 Comments

As many commenters have pointed out, there seems to be a controversy brewing over how District 150’s counterproposal was handled, especially by the district, but to some extent by the city.

First, the Journal Star reported on Friday that “Hinton told [school] board members about the proposals before he delivered them [to Mayor Ardis], but they all declined comment Thursday. Many said they looked at a draft document and didn’t feel comfortable discussing it.”

As one of my readers pointed out, “Final authority for all matters concerning the District lies with the Board of Education,” according to District 150’s Board of Education Policy Manual. So one wonders why Hinton is giving the board a draft document, then presenting it to the city as the school board’s official counterproposal before the board even has a chance to discuss it.

One story I heard through the grapevine (so this is all hearsay) is that Clare Jellick of the Journal Star actually got a copy of the district’s counterproposal on Wednesday (no one will admit to leaking it), and so Hinton hurriedly delivered it to the city on Thursday afternoon. Supposedly he didn’t want city officials to learn about it by reading it in the paper Friday morning. But that just sounds odd to me, for some reason. Hinton’s been around a while. Surely he knows he could have just told Jellick that it was a “work in progress” and said he couldn’t comment on it until the board had a chance to discuss it, right? It’s not like this guy has never worked with the media before.

There seem to be two possibilities: (1) Hinton acted completely on his own in presenting this draft document to Mayor Ardis, in which case the board could declare the proposal void and come up with a new, board-approved proposal to present to the city; or (2) the board approved this document, but not in a public forum — in which case I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the Open Meetings Act — and Hinton accidentally acted on it before the board legally approved it. Either way, one would think Hinton would get some sort of reprimand for acting without authority.

Moving on to the city…. On Friday, the Journal Star said, “Councilman Bob Manning said internal talks [on the proposal from District 150] likely won’t start until next week.” But then, at 11 a.m. Friday, there was a press conference where the Mayor and Councilman Manning announced the city was rejecting the offer and would not offer any further counterproposals. That was a quick change of plans.

“First District Councilman Clyde Gulley said he didn’t understand why the City Council didn’t discuss the proposals Thursday night, when it was already gathered for a budget meeting,” the Journal Star reported today.

Now, I personally don’t see this as being that big of a deal. This is a third-district issue and up to Manning’s discretion if he wants to pursue it further. It’s never been brought before the council, and there’s no law saying Manning has to pursue this or get council approval to abandon the idea. The $500,000 Manning was proposing giving to the school for land acquisition would have come out of money earmarked for third-district projects, but had not been formally proposed to the council yet. If Manning decides to drop the issue and not bring a proposal before the council for a vote, then that’s his prerogative.

Based on the proposal he received, I’m sure Manning saw no other option than to end negotiations. The district’s counterproposal wasn’t any different than what they’ve been pursuing all along; one would be hard-pressed to find any kind of compromise in their counteroffer. The district essentially asked for three times as much money as they were offered by the city and a larger site. Manning had already offered all the money he had to offer, so he has no wiggle room to come back with a counteroffer on funding.

Worse, the district knows full well that the city has only been pursuing this explicitly because they don’t want the new school built at Glen Oak Park. So why is one of the counteroffers from the district to give the city the old Glen Oak building in exchange for $500,000 for property acquisition at the park site? Talk about a slap in the face! Hello — if the city were willing to consider putting the school in the park, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. How could Manning conclude anything other than that the district isn’t really interested in trying to find a workable solution?

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

City to D150: Thanks, but no thanks

5 Comments

At a joint press conference today, the City officially responded to District 150’s counterproposal regarding the site of a new school for the Woodruff attendance area: “We respectfully decline.” Bob Manning explained that there was really very little room for negotiation to begin with.

“From day one, we put together our best-faith effort,” Manning said, referring to the City’s offer of $500,000 in property acquisition costs if the school board would build the replacement school at Frye and Wisconsin, site of the current Glen Oak Primary School. He added the City wouldn’t be making any further counterproposals.

It’s practically certain that the school district will now continue their pursuit of building the school at the corner of Prospect and Frye, adjacent to Glen Oak Park, and resume acquiring that property. But Ken Hinton, District 150 Superintendent, wouldn’t confirm that. He said he didn’t have the authority to make that statement because it’s a school board decision.

Mayor Ardis didn’t want today’s events to be characterized as “talks breaking down,” but rather that “we’ve agreed to disagree” and are moving forward. In fact, the catchphrase for the press conference was that both parties are “moving forward.”

“The important question is, ‘Where are we going?'” Hinton retorted when asked if it was easy for him to speak of moving forward when the district got everything it wanted. He called the school siting debate “a learning experience,” called attention to all the other ways the school board and City are working together, and stressed the school board and City have the same goal — to work together to provide the best education we can for the children of this community.

When asked if the city would cut any funding they currenly provide to District 150, Manning responded that there would be “no retaliatory strikes.” George Jacob congratulated Manning on his leadership on this issue and stressed that the City’s and community’s concern is rebuilding neighborhoods, and they would like to partner with District 150 and other governmental bodies (PHA, neighborhood associations, etc.) in the future in that effort.

My take: It was clear to City officials that the school district has no interest in compromising, so they figured it’s not worth pursuing any further. I hate to say “I told you so,” but I did predict this would be the outcome way back on July 17. It was clear from day one that the school district had no intention of seriously considering the city’s offer. One wonders why it took them two whole months (Manning gave them the City’s offer July 15) to respond.

I appreciated the conciliatory tone of the press conference, but let’s be honest — there is a rift between the city and the school district. Even though there may not be any “retaliatory strikes,” I believe that school projects are not going to be as high a priority now when it comes to budget-cutting time for the city. If the police department needs more officers on the street and there’s no money in the budget to hire more officers, do you think the truancy officers on loan to the school district might get reassigned? You bet.

So, while I’m sure there will be no capricious cutting of the city’s support for District 150, I don’t see the school board getting the level of cooperation and funding that they would have if they’d cooperated with the city on this school siting project.

But hey, the school district apparently doesn’t need money anyway, right? I mean, the whole premise of closing schools was to shutter the buildings and sell them, saving $500,000 per building according to their Master Facilities Plan. Yet when they closed Blaine-Sumner Middle School, they didn’t sell it or save a half-million dollars. They retrofitted it with air conditioning and turned it into an office building for the district’s special education workers. What about the health/safety problems? What about the asbestos? What about the $500,000 they need to save, which is the whole reason they’re closing buildings in the first place?

District 150 continues to lose credibility, and now they’re probably going to lose funding, too. If only their commitment to solvency and cooperation were as strong as their commitment to putting a suburban-style school at Glen Oak Park.

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

Is District 150 tacitly abandoning East Bluff school?

6 Comments

Mentioned briefly at the end of the Journal Star’s article on the District 150 board meeting last night is this nugget:

The board agreed to begin negotiations with an architectural team to design a replacement school for Harrison Primary School.

The district will begin negotiations with local firm LZT Associates and Chicago-based firm Perkins+Will. The district intends to replace Harrison with a new school across the street. The planned site is a recently demolished section of Harrison Homes on Krause Avenue.

No mention of the East Bluff replacement school in that story. But there was a passing comment on WCBU this morning that the school district still hasn’t come to an agreement with the city on where to build a new school in the East Bluff; and they added, one may not be built at all.

Although a decision has not been officially made, it appears to me the district has made up their mind. They’ve already established in previous meetings that they don’t like the city’s site preference and the cost of building a “birth through eighth community center” type of school will cost millions of dollars more than they budgeted for construction. Several weeks ago, Superintendent Hinton and other board members stressed how urgent it was to make a decision soon so they could get the new school built in time before Glen Oak School is slated to close. Considering that we haven’t heard anything about the East Bluff replacement school for weeks now, and seeing how the district has shifted focus to the new Harrison replacement school, my intuition tells me there isn’t going to be a new school in the East Bluff anytime soon, and Glen Oak’s closing will likely be delayed.

I could be totally wrong in my prediction. But if I’m right, it raises another question. If they do officially decide not to build a new school in the East Bluff, will they reopen White School?

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 responds to Royster suit

Kay RoysterThe Journal Star reports this morning that District 150 has filed their response to Kay Royster’s allegation that she was terminated as Superintendent due to racial discrimination. You can read the full reply by clicking here (PDF file).

Of most interest to me was that they denied the most damaging claim (in my opinion) — that a meeting took place among only the white board members where the black board members were specifically not invited. They didn’t give any details of their defense, just a flat denial. Of course, how does one prove a negative? It will be up to Royster to prove such a meeting took place.

Not metioned in the Journal Star article are the “Affirmative Defenses” at the end of the 25-page reply. Among the more interesting ones to me: the defendants claim that most of the allegations have been brought forward too late — that they’re past the statute of limitations time period, that the specific defendants (Aaron Schock, Sean Matheson, Vince Wieland, and Mary Spangler) have immunity from suit because they’re local legislators, and Royster “lacks standing to bring some or all of her claims as she was fully compensated under the terms and conditions of her expired contract.”