Category Archives: Peoria Public Schools

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School Board sets table for rebuff of city plan

4 Comments

The District 150 School Board didn’t vote on the city’s proposal tonight to build a new school at Wisconsin and Frye, but the outcome is just short of certain: forget it.

School Design and Construction Committee members Guy Cahill (also district treasurer) and Marty Collier (Cat-employed architect) gave a short presentation, then took questions from the school board, some of which they answered immediately but most of which they plan to report back next week.

During the presentation, Cahill raised questions about the city’s land acquisition assessment; he said the city expects to acquire homes in the Glen Oak School area at market value (three times the assessed value), whereas the school board estimated higher than market value rates. He also raised questions about the “geometry of the site,” saying it “may or may not lend itself to what ultimately is planned.” He wants to have an educational expert compare and contrast the two sites for suitability, and he has questions about what all the city will be paying for — specifically, he wants to compare what the city paid for in the Valeska-Hinton agreement with what is being proposed now.

Collier reported on what’s coming out of the workshops he’s conducting with the School Design and Construction Committee. He said first of all that, since it’s going to be a “community school,” it’s going to need to be designed differently than a standard elementary school. Because of the mix of uses, the space will need to be “distributed widely” — in other words, it should be one-story instead of multi-story. This creates “segmentation” that keeps very young children from comingling with older children, and keeps the children separated from the “community” part of the school that would include a health clinic, for instance. He also mentioned there would need to be quite a bit of space devoted to (you guessed it) parking and bus queueing.

The questions from the board members were far from neutral or evenhanded. A lot of them were worded negatively: e.g., “what sports fields would be eliminated if we went with the Glen Oak School site?” “What programs will be lost by going to a smaller footprint?” It was pretty obvious the only purpose of their questions was to get information that will help them build a case against the current school site and for the park site.

There were a couple of interesting points, however. New board member Debbie Wolfmeyer stressed that, in comparing the two sites, the school board should only consider the land the district will actually own — which would be ten acres at the park site or ten acres at the school site — because the district will have no control over the land the park district owns, even though it’s adjacent to the proposed site. For instance, she brought up that the park already plans to replace one of the ball diamonds for a parking lot, so there’s no guarantees the other ball diamond will be there forever.

Also, new board president David Gorentz said, “The building plan and site plan should be driven by the programmatic plan. Until you have a program plan, you don’t know how much space you really need.” Since the program plan won’t be completed until this Wednesday, and the school board announced their selection of the park site back in March, I found Dr. Gorentz’s statement to be a tacit admission that the school board has been going about site selection completely backwards.

The bottom line is, the school board will rebuff the city’s offer and build the new school at Glen Oak Park like they planned all along. It’s in the cards.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150: Funding plan depends on circumventing voters

3 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoGuy Cahill, District 150 treasurer, is quoted in today’s Journal Star saying this: “Until we can demonstrate having our fiscal house in order, I think people would legitimately have a healthy skepticism of putting more money into our coffers.”

Bingo. That’s exactly how Peorians feel. If the district were to come up with a reasonable plan to put their fiscal house in order, I think they could get public buy-in and pass a referendum. But their current plan is pie-in-the-sky, and they know voters wouldn’t pass a tax increase to pay for it.

So, what to do? Why, go around the voters, of course! That’s why they wanted the state to pass a bill that would allow the school to get funding through the Public Building Commission (PBC) instead of having to ask voters. The only trouble is, the governor saw through their little ploy and put an amendatory veto on the bill. If his veto stands, the district would have to get voter approval to use PBC funds.

The governor has said that he doesn’t want the district to raise taxes without voter approval. The district doesn’t consider its proposal as a tax increase. The governor does, spokeswoman Becky Carroll said Thursday.

See, the school district is close to paying off some old bonds. Once they’re paid off, the tax levy that was financing them would expire. The district wants to keep that tax levy in place to pay for the new bonds. Thus, the district doesn’t consider its proposal a tax increase because, under their plan, the tax levy on the new bonds wouldn’t be any higher than the tax levy on the old bonds.

But do they really expect us to buy that logic? That’s like if I gave the district a credit card and said, “okay guys, I authorize you to spend $1,000. The bill will come to me, and I’ll pay $50 per month until it’s paid off.” Then, just about the time the debt is paid off, the district decides to charge another $1,000 — without my approval — and tell me it’s not costing me any more because I’ll still only be paying $50 per month.

Cahill thinks the district should be allowed to do just that, and if they can’t, then their whole funding plan falls apart. So, in essence, District 150’s building plan is dependent on the district’s ability to avoid a public referendum to extend the tax levy (which is plainly a tax increase). That means, their plan only works if they avoid accountability to the voters.

That’s a bad plan.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School debate contentious enough without cynicism

5 Comments

I finally figured out what it is that really gets my goat in the debate over where District 150 wants to put its new school. It’s cynicism.

A letter printed on the Journal Star editorial page today (under the misnomer “Another View,” since it’s the same view as the JS Editorial Board’s) is a good example. Even though I disagree with her, Dawn Gersich of Peoria makes some good arguments in favor of the Glen Oak Park site for the new school. Those are appropriate and helpful to the debate. What is not helpful is the cynical eye she casts on those who disagree:

Regarding the proposed school site in Glen Oak Park, I have yet to hear, “What’s best for the children?”

And:

The fate of our neighborhoods, indeed our nation, is dependent on the investment we place in our children. It’s a shame that some people get caught up in politics and forget that we should be focused on what is best for kids.

See? Those who oppose the Glen Oak Park site are not concerned about what’s best for the children and are “caught up in politics.” This attribution of ulterior motives is known as cynicism.

Ms. Gersich is not the only cynical one. Garrie Allen said in an interview on WCBU last week that he believed the city council and others have “an agenda” to “clean up” the East Bluff. In other words, he thinks they’re more interested in urban renewal than what’s best for the children’s education. Mr. Matheson has made similar remarks.

This kind of rhetoric is horribly misleading, and it is not healthy for the debate.

First of all, Peorians want District 150 to succeed. They want the best for their children and all children in the city. They want the schools to be second to none so people want to move into District 150 instead of out of it. The debate is not between those who care about the children and those who care about politics. We all care about the children.

Secondly, doing what’s best for the children cannot be divorced from considering what’s best for the city and what’s best for the financial health of the school district.

You can dismiss city cooperation as “politics” if you want, but the school is not an enclave, uneffected by and not affecting the city. If urban flight continues, if crime increases, if property values continue to go down, it’s not just the city that loses, it’s the school district. They lose students, performance, property tax revenue, and federal funds. Similarly, if schools are in disrepair and test scores are low, it’s not just the school district that suffers, it’s the city, because what young family wants to live in a failing school district? The city and school district must work together for their mutual success, and that directly affects the children.

Another unpleasant subject when determining “what’s best for the children” is money. You know what would be best for my children? The best private tutor(s) money can buy, then college at Harvard or Oxford. Are my kids going to get that? No. I don’t have the money to do that. When you want to do what’s best for the children, you have to what’s best for them within your means.

The school district is in bad financial shape. Contrary to popular belief, their ambitious plan to build new schools was not based purely on “what’s best for the children.” The plan came about as a way for the district to save money. The idea is to eliminate old, inefficient buildings, and consolidate into fewer, larger, but more efficient buildings. Educational experts will tell you that “what’s best for the children” are small, neighborhood schools — not large, consolidated schools. In fact, a District 150 subcommittee headed up by Bradley professor Bernard Goitein reported exactly that to the school board before the master building plan was put together.

I say all this, not to say that the school board doesn’t have the best interests of the students at heart (I believe they do), but to point out that the issue is not as black and white as some letter writers would have you believe. Both sides in this debate want what’s best for the children, but have different views on how to accomplish that within the financial means of the district and in cooperation with the city.

City of Peoria, East Bluff, Peoria Public Schools

Say goodnight, Garrie

13 Comments

Garrie AllenOn WCBU (89.9 FM) tonight, they aired a half-hour interview with outgoing District 150 School Board member Garrie Allen. They touched on many topics, but I was particularly interested in his remarks about the Glen Oak School controversy.

Garrie Allen believes the city should butt out of the school board’s building plans — that it’s none of their business — unless, of course, they are in favor of the school board’s plans, in which case their help is welcome. He further believes that the residents, parents, and city council have an agenda: they want the school district to “clean up” the East Bluff, which he kept calling “a blighted area.” That should be the city’s job, he contends, not the school district’s.

Allen stated he was really surprised when all the controversy erupted over the Glen Oak Park location for the school. He said he thought the school board would be praised for their progressive and innovative idea and people would be lining up to volunteer their help to make it happen. Instead, the only group that really understands what the school district is trying to do, says Garrie, is the park district, which approved an intergovernmental land-sharing agreement with the school district.

I couldn’t be more disappointed with Mr. Allen’s comments.

I don’t remember Mr. Allen asking the city to “butt out” when they offered their police force to double as truancy officers. I don’t recall the city being asked to “butt out” when Mayor Ardis challenged the community to raise money for a “Peoria Promise” program that would reward students who stayed in District 150 with a free or partially-paid college education. Apparently, Mr. Allen thinks cooperation is a one-way street, from the city to the school district.

And what kind of hyper-provincial mentality believes that cleaning up a blighted neighborhood is somehow opposed to the school board’s educational objectives? One would think the school board would welcome and assist attempts to stabilize the neighborhood, since that would improve students’ home environment — and if their home environment is safe and stable, it will be easier for students to focus on their school work. But instead, Mr. Allen paints the city’s attempts to work with the school board to stabilize neighborhoods as something that will help the city, but hurt the students. This kind of twisted logic would leave Solomon scratching his head.

I had the pleasure of voting against Mr. Allen in the last election. He lost by a considerable margin, but I savor the small part I played in his defeat.

You know what amazes me about this whole Glen Oak School thing? It’s that, despite the fact that nearly every parent, neighbor, representative, resident, professional, worker, etc., in the East Bluff and the city at large has expressed disapproval of the district’s plan, the school district still thinks that they made the right decision and are doing the right thing. They’ve had Bradley professors, city commission members, a state senator, Glen Oak students, etc., all speak out against the board’s actions. Are they deterred? Has the thought, “Hmm, maybe we were wrong,” crossed their minds, if even for a fleeting moment?

Hardly. If anything, they’re all the more steeled in their opinions. If Moses walked in the district offices on Wisconsin with two tablets that said “Don’t build on Glen Oak Park” and brought 10 plagues on the district, I’m convinced the board would ignore him, too (no doubt citing separation of church and state). This kind of overconfidence is baffling, yet endemic in this board of education. For a school district that wants to build a “community center” style school, they sure are doing their darndest to alienate the community.

I think the only thing we can do is exactly what we did to Mr. Allen. Vote them out at the next available opportunity.

ADDENDUM:  I see on the July 11 council agenda that there’s intergovernmental cooperation between the school district and the city called the “Safer Neighborhood Schools Sidewalk Improvement Project.” I wonder if Mr. Allen signed on to that agreement, or if he felt the city should “butt out” of that, too.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 Realtor: Nice work if you can get it

Peoria Public Schools logoIt’s been quite a mystery, trying to figure out how Keller Williams Premier Realty got the nod to provide all of District 150’s realty needs. You would think, with homes sure to bring in over $2,500 each in commission, the district would bid out professional services like a realtor. But not so.

If the school district wants to acquire property, they don’t go directly to a realtor — they call their attorneys: Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick, P.C. Their attorneys then work with a realtor whom they have retained for approximately 18 years now: Dinah Mannlein, formerly a Re/Max realtor, now general broker for the Keller Williams franchise office in Peoria.

In a letter from District 150’s attorneys dated 19 April 2006 to Controller and Treasurer Guy Cahill (obtained via an FOIA request), attorney David J. Walvoord explains the history of this contract arrangement:

This relationship began in 1988, when I was asked by an in-coming Superintendent for a recommendation for a real estate broker to help him relocate to Peoria. Of the several names I gave him, Ms. Mannlein was chosen. Shortly after that time, the District needed the services of a real estate professional to help acquire several properties for the District and [former Superintendent] Dr. [John] Strand and I recommended Ms. Mannlein to the Board of Education. Either the Superintendent or I sent her a letter retaining her on behalf of the District, she was to be paid a commission of five (5%) percent based upon the purchase price of any properties, which were part of a project, or, if there were isolated properties put on the market by their owner for sale, she was to receive the standard buyer’s side commission of 3.5%, which is paid by the seller.

The dates are a little sketchy, but it’s clear Ms. Mannlein has been the district’s realtor for a good long time. The letter goes on to share some of the projects she’s worked on, including “the acquisition of a number of properties for the Tyng School expansion, Whittier School and Glen oak School site expansions, Lincoln School site acquisition, Columbia Terrace purchases, Central High School–North Street purchases,” and “the Lindbergh lot purchase on North Sheridan.” Nice work if you can get it.

Walvoord also explains the working arrangements between the district, attorneys, and Keller Williams Realty:

The realtor works directly with me, as attorney for the District. They take directions from me and make reports to me. In turn, I keep the administration advised as to the status of the project.

The current purchases of properties on North Prospect and East Frye Streets at Glen Oak Park are under the same agreement.

Not only do reports and directions go through the attorneys, so do commissions on the sale of property. The settlement charges (i.e., commissions) for seven of the eight acquired properties were not reported on the HUD-1 settlement statements. Instead, Keller Williams billed Kavanagh, et. al., P.C. for the commissions, which are as follows:

Address Sales Price Commission
2102 N. Prospect $140,000 Paid by seller
2126 N. Prospect $98,000 $4,900
2138 N. Prospect $82,000 $4,100
2142 N. Prospect $90,000 $4,500
2144 N. Prospect $89,000 $4,450
2206 N. Prospect $120,000 $6,000
2208 N. Prospect $133,500 $6,675
2212 N. Prospect $125,000 $6,250
TOTAL $877,500 $36,875

Except for the one property noted above, the sellers are not paying the commissions on these properties — the school district is, albeit indirectly.

Incidentally, I’ve never met Ms. Mannlein, but I’m sure she’s a very nice person. According to a press release from the Peoria Area Association of Realtors, she won the Association’s Distinguished Member for Community Service Award “for her exceptional volunteer work with Peoria Junior League, Children’s Home, Peoria Symphony, American Cancer Society, Methodist Hospice, Family House, Peoria Zoological Society, Peoria Garden Club, Crab Orchard Homeowners Association, and her church.” No one could accuse her of not giving back to the community.

That said, I’m still surprised that this contract for realty services never comes up for review or renewal. Not that I have any beef with Ms. Mannlein being the district’s realtor in perpetuity (we should all be so lucky), but doesn’t such an arrangement seem unusual for a public body? To provide all the district’s realty business (and commissions) to a single realtor for almost 20 years without any kind of review?

I’m just asking.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 accused of racial discrimination

5 Comments

Kay RoysterThe Journal Star reports today that former Peoria Public School Superintendent Kay Royster is suing the school board (and board members Aaron Schock, Vince Wieland, Sean Matheson, and Mary Spangler individually) for racial discrimination.

Read the case for yourself
(13-page PDF file):
Kay Royster Suit against District 150

Everything I read in the suit can be explained based on performance issues rather than racial discrimination (in my opinion), except for this:

In approximately October 2002, less than three months after her contract period began, a meeting of Board Members was organized to discuss terminating Royster. Board members Allen and Martha Ross were not invited to the meeting. Both Allen and Ross are African-Americans.

If that allegation is true, it certainly is damning. Why would Allen and Ross be excluded if it were a mere performance issue? It will be interesting to follow this case and see the evidence presented during trial, assuming the parties don’t settle out of court before then. Royster has demanded a jury trial.

Meanwhile, the children of district 150 continue to be the ultimate losers in this battle. No matter whose fault it is, money that should be going to provide the best education for the students is instead going to lawyers.

Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission, State Legislation

Governor to protect Peoria taxpayers before signing PBC bill

I’m not a fan of Gov. Blagojevich, but I was thrilled to read this in today’s paper:

“We just want to make sure that if there’s going to be any talk about an increase in anybody’s property tax, that it can’t just happen by the School Board (or the Public Building Commission). It’s got to be by referendum,” Blagojevich said Friday.

Thus, he’s going to amend the PBC bill (SB2477) that Sen. Shadid asked him to sign to ensure just that. This is a victory for Peoria County taxpayers. The possibility of the school board being able to get around a referendum to increase taxes was the biggest complaint about the PBC bill. The governor’s amendment will make sure taxpayers are protected.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools, Public Building Commission

News flash: Shadid okays PBC bill

2 Comments

George P. ShadidDuring a presentation about the Public Building Commission at tonight’s City Council meeting, it was revealed that Senator Shadid advised the Governor to approve SB2477, a bill he had previously asked the Governor not to sign pending public input on the site of District 150’s new school building.

“Senate Bill 2477 would allow the Peoria Public Building Commission the temporary authority to enter into construction contracts with Peoria School District 150.”

City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, Peoria Public Schools

Bad news for New Urbanism

7 Comments

First there was the Civic Center expansion. Then there was the Peoria Museum and Cat Visitor Center.

Next it will be the new District 150 schools.

What am I talking about? Exceptions to the Heart of Peoria Plan, Peoria’s attempt at New Urbanism.

The City’s Efforts

The city has been working hard to develop a form-based code — you know, the kind of code that regulates the form of the built environment, the kind that says you have to make sure your building fits in with the surrounding architecture, construction materials, and setbacks. It’s actually a great idea that will help preserve the character and appeal of the older neighborhoods.

And the best part is that they sought and obtained a lot of input from the most important people: the residents. They held charrettes and got the input of hundreds of ordinary citizens on the kind of built environment they would prefer in these neighborhoods, even working together to reach consensus on those points on which residents disagreed.

The School Board’s Counter-Efforts

Unfortunately, the school district is not interested in the city’s (or the residents’) efforts to revitalize the older neighborhoods. Garrie Allen said at Monday’s school board meeting, “It’s not our job as a school district to clean up blighted areas… We’re not urban renewal people.” That doesn’t sound especially cooperative. In a recent e-mail to a neighborhood activist, another school board member agreed, stating in an even more adversarial tone, “The Board of Education is charged with doing what is best for students, not for neighborhood groups or community redevelopment.”

The law is on the school board’s side. According to legal experts, the 1965 Illinois Appellate Court decision, “Board of Ed., School Dist. 33, DuPage County v. City of West Chicago” (55 Ill.App.2d 401), set the precedent that school districts are not subject to municipal zoning laws or building codes. That means they can build any kind of building they want in whatever style they want, regardless of the city’s form-based codes.

So, hypothetically, if they wanted to put up a 12-story high-rise on the corner of Wisconsin and Frye, they could. Or if they wanted to set up a group of interconnected yurts, they could do that, too. But what they want to do is build a sprawling, single-story, suburban-style school on a large swath of land in the middle of Peoria’s older neighborhoods — the exact type of structure form-based codes are being created to prevent.

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Just because the school board has the legal authority to do something doesn’t mean they have to disregard the clear wishes of neighbors. And, contrary to the rhetoric of school board members, they don’t have to compromise educational objectives to cooperate with the city’s revitalization efforts.

In Seattle, Washington, when their Whittier Elementary School was wearing out and needed to be replaced, they built a new structure in 1999 that the principal described as “uplifting, effective, safe, and secure.” The new building was also designed to meet these requirements (see if they look familiar):

  • Enhance teaching and learning and accommodate the needs of all learners.
  • Serve as center of the community.
  • Result from a planning/design process involving all stakeholders.
  • Provide for health, safety, and security.
  • Make effective use of all available resources.
  • Allow for flexibility and adaptability to changing needs.

These are the same objectives for the new “birth through eighth” school that District 150 wants to build, but there’s one big difference: the new Whittier School in Seattle looks like this:

Whittier Seattle

Notice it is brick, has an urban setback, is multi-story, and sits on a mere 2.7 acres. It cost somewhere between $9 million and $13.6 million total to build, according to published reports. Yet despite the small footprint, this school “has won praise and prizes, including a Citation of Excellence from the American School Board Journal and an Exemplary Learning Environment award from the American Institute of Architects.” It’s also a Learning By Design 2000 Citation Winner.

And how about the kids — do they like it? Are their spirits lifted, and does it make them want to learn? “‘From the minute the children walked in here,’ [the principal] says, ‘I knew we had succeeded. They love it, and that tells me we did things right.'”

If Seattle can figure out how to meet their educational objectives while still making their building congruous with the neighborhood on a small site, I’m sure Peoria can do the same…. if the school board is willing to be open-minded, that is.