Several days ago, I mentioned that audit reports the last several years for District 150 have been warning about inadequate internal controls. Things are no different this year, the Journal Star reports.
The internal financial review controls at District 150 are at the very least inadequate, resulting in errors, unsubstantiated account balances and generally leaves the district without an accurate day-to-day report of its cash flow, according to a letter from the district’s auditors.
I had also wondered how Cahill could keep his job with such terrible audit reports year after year. Apparently Cahill wondered that himself, according to an e-mail he wrote that the Journal Star acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request:
Cahill said he believed the [audit] letter, received from District 150 this week through a Freedom of Information Act request, would be used in calling for his termination, according to an e-mail from his District 150 account to a Chicago attorney, received through a separate FOIA request.
“The attached will be used by several board members who, I suspect, will call for my firing,” the Feb. 5 e-mail states. “What the management letter does not disclose is that most if not all the items reported have been the norm in the district for more than 14 years, according to auditors (Ron Hilton, Dennis Baily, and Helen Barrick), and cover the terms of at least three controller-treasurers.”
Interesting defense. He’s basically saying that internal controls have always been inadequate, so he shouldn’t be held responsible for their continuing to be inadequate. Not very convincing.
But here’s what really slays me. The headline for this story is “District 150’s books a mess.” But another report filed just hours before this one has the headline: “District 150: Finances in order.” This latter story is about District 150’s meeting with the Public Building Commission to assure them that the district’s finances are not a problem.
Nine District 150 representatives filled a small meeting room before the Public Building Commission of Peoria on Thursday, reassuring its members that the school district is on the right financial path.
“I want to reassure this particular body that the Board of Education immediately began taking action in January to adjust expenditures to meet those predicted revenue shortfalls,” Superintendent Ken Hinton told PBC members. “This board, this administration is completely dedicated in seeing that our school district is solvent.”
Not that this was at all necessary. PBC members appear unconcerned with District 150’s budget woes.
When asked whether the PBC has any concerns about the district’s financial solvency and the district’s ability to repay the bonds, Goldstein and Thornton said “no.” Both men also noted the commission had no concerns about Cahill’s departure.
Really? No concerns at all? The district “has projected it will have a $4.3 million deficit and possible $9 million-plus revenue shortfall next year,” and they fired their controller/treasurer, and their audit reports have been deplorable, but the PBC has no concerns? I guess if you’re an unelected body, unaccountable to the voters, you can afford to take such a cavalier attitude with property tax money.
Great posting C.J. I noted the same discrepancy in the headlines. I think that Cahill’s defense accomplished what he wanted – a mutually agreeable (read “nice financial”) separation agreement. What I find completely amazing is that Hinton doesn’t get called to task for his role in this? He takes credit for balancing budget (huh?) but none of the responsibility when we find out it wasn’t (isn’t) [and probably never will be under his tenure] really balanced in a responsible way.
He’s great at throwing out plans to address a public outcry and then backing off or committing an about face as soon as possible. I particularly love the “let’s close a H.S. – it’s the only way to rightsize our system and address our systemic financial problems” and then shortly thereafter – “Let’s wait and see if the stimulus plan saves our ass for a year”. No leadership from this guy at all.
Having been on both sides of an audit, I cannot fathom going 14 years with essentially the same terrible audit note. As both an auditor and auditee we get/got those things addressed by the next audit period. Things the auditor tells you to fix shouldn’t be treated as just a suggestion. I honestly can’t believe the auditors continue to allow them to skate by with such shoddy internal controls. How can you express an opinion on an entity with 14 years of such terrible internal controls that you can’t even substantiate account balances? Maybe I just worked for hard ass accounting firm? It just boggles my mind.
CJ, this morning Dh and I were laughing our heads off over the absurdity of those 2 contradicting headlines. Would you say that somewhere the right hand isn’t talking to the left hand? Anyway, I figured I could count on you or Billy to publish the ridiculousness of it all…
Bean Counter – I guess with your name you must know what you are talking about, however, isn’t it “management,” in the case the Board, that is ultimately responsible for acting on the findings of the audit? In a normal organization, this would be done through the controller, who would take action to correct or put the proper controls in place to address the audit note, but after 14 years you think one Board member would have noticed and insisted such matters be cured.
It is no surprise the District is in the shape it is in.
Yes, C.J., great posting–maybe we are on the road to more transparency for District 150.
Frustrated, when you have the systemic incompetance demonstrated here, I think it would be fair to say the buck stops at the top. (Hinton)
Goldstein and Thorton should resign.
Cahill is the one who started the 14-year business. How can we know if that is correct or if he is trying to dodge blame? Clifton & Gunderson haven’t confirmed or denied Cahill’s allegation. It seems that the first time this audit note came up was during the audit of the 2004-05 SY when Carla Eman was the acting controller and then Cahill came on board in late spring.
Are they counting on a bailout from the stimulus bill?
There had been financial problems with treasurers during Royster’s regime–wasn’t at least one person fired?
No, Sharon, since at least Harvey Jenkins’ tenure as Controller/Treasurer (predating Strand’s time as Superintendent), the only one “fired” is Cahill. You may be getting confused – Dr. Kilpatrick resigned 06/30/02 to accept a position with the Bloomington school district, he is now the superintendent in Morton.
OPM – other people’s money – they couldn’t care less
I definitely know the Kilpatrick wasn’t fired; his daughter taught at Manual. However, Tammy Rusk during the Royster regime was let go. She may have resigned, but I seem to recall that she was fired. Whatever she left in a cloud of dust–was here one minute and gone the next. And it was because of some financial discrepancy.
The more I think about Cahill’s thinly veiled “smear” attempt, the angrier I get. Kilpatrick served in the Controller/Treasurer position from 1991-92 through the end of 2001-02. Whether one agreed with his decisions or not, you never heard any rumors or innuendo about his integrity. Roger is a very honorable man with an impeccable reputation. His successor, is also a very honorable, ethical person who would not even entertain the hint of inappropriate business ethics. And then there is Cahill – hired near the end of 2004-05 – who had been fired from Pekin and the suburban Chicago district. Why would anyone lend credibility to what he says?
Sharon, you’re correct – I forgot about Tammy Rust. She did formally resign but there were some pretty serious “personality” conflicts with certain board members.
To correct my post above, it should read “Rust’s successor is also a very honorable, ethical person . . .”. Sorry.
I didn’t question Kilpatrick’s integrity–I agree totally about his honor, etc. But was I right or wrong about Rusk? It is Terry Knapp–who has stood up at almost every board meeting since Cahill was hired–who revealed Cahill’s background, criticized his hiring, and has consistently called for his dismissal; but no one listened until now.
“Frustrated, when you have the systemic incompetance demonstrated here, I think it would be fair to say the buck stops at the top. (Hinton)”
WRONG. The top is School Board. The School Board’s ONLY job is to oversee the operation of Wisconsin. They are not real estate speculators, they are not human resource departments or benefit administrators, curriculum developers or policy executives.
If you recall the “pat answer” from the school boards of the past years has been… whatever the administration at Wisconsin Ave does is ok with us, because THEY are the experts.
My god we had a high school kid on our school board! We have exactly the school system we deserve for allowing the school board and administration to get away with the nonsense they have gotten away with.
Prairie Celt: Refresh my memory–who did come after Rusk?
Sharon- it might have been the messenger. I tend to block out anything coming out of Knapp’s mouth. He approach turns me off.
Peo Proud–I knew I would get that response. Terry is a friend of mine, so I trust him, etc. Everyone else is, of course, free to their own opinions. I would ask, though, as with anyone else, that we try to pay heed to the message. Terry is very, very knowlegeable about 150 issues–and admittedly always looks at things from a teacher’s point of view (and sometimes is own); since so few people in 150 admin do so, I have appreciated his representation. Terry’s style, etc., has made him many friends and probably a goodly number of enemies (or milder opponents). On the subject of Cahill, however, he was on target (and I believe many other issues) and had the best interests of teachers, 150, and taxpayers at heart.
As some say, some wouldn’t, I’m back with the same old common sense. Until the organizational chart is reorganized with the top person being one steeped in “how to run a major business ($160 million and growing) and have a full understanding of finance and business adminstartion, people will be writing the same stuff 10 years from now. That is, if Obama’s spreading bureacracies don’t take complete control.
All the other categories as Associate Superintendent of Education, people like Hinton, Treasurer, Controller, Comptroller, IT, Transportation, etc. reporting to the board and top administrator, not much will change.
At large elected School Board members, 5 are enough, well paid, three year alternating and full time.
I’ve blogged for years on the changes that need be made. I’m letting other take up the torch.
Sharon (if I may be so informal):
He may be exactly right and I wasn’t commenting on the validity of the message. I was just commenting (observing) that a different style may have made the message easier to accept and kept more people tuned in. But I guess for the good of the system, we all need to focus on the message and not the messenger……. I used to have this same view of Councilman Sandberg but overtime history showed me that on some key issues he was dead on — while I still disagree on some of his positions – I wish that I had been able to listen to him earlier on a few issues.
Prairiecelt:
I agree, Kilpatrick was a very competent administrator. One of the better the District has had. Where is he now? Morton? Think he would consider the Superintendent position when Hinton retires? Rusk, on the other hand, was a train wreck.
As I mentioned above, Tammy Rust had some “serious personality conflicts” with certain board members and did resign. Was she “pressured” – very likely.
The Board needs to take this one step further and let Hinton go. He is the Superintendent, and, according to the Illinois School Code his duties follow:
(105 ILCS 5/10?21.4) (from Ch. 122, par. 10?21.4)
Sec. 10?21.4. Superintendent ? Duties. Except in districts in which there is only one school with less than four teachers, to employ a superintendent who shall have charge of the administration of the schools under the direction of the board of education. In addition to the administrative duties, the superintendent shall make recommendations to the board concerning the budget, building plans, the locations of sites, the selection, retention and dismissal of teachers and all other employees, the selection of textbooks, instructional material and courses of study. However, in districts under a Financial Oversight Panel pursuant to Section 1A?8 for violating a financial plan, the duties and responsibilities of the superintendent in relation to the financial and business operations of the district shall be approved by the Panel. In the event the Board refuses or fails to follow a directive or comply with an information request of the Panel, the performance of those duties shall be subject to the direction of the Panel. The superintendent shall also notify the State Board of Education, the board and the chief administrative official, other than the alleged perpetrator himself, in the school where the alleged perpetrator serves, that any person who is employed in a school or otherwise comes into frequent contact with children in the school has been named as a perpetrator in an indicated report filed pursuant to the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act, approved June 26, 1975, as amended. The superintendent shall keep or cause to be kept the records and accounts as directed and required by the board, aid in making reports required by the board, and perform such other duties as the board may delegate to him.
In addition, in January of each year, each superintendent shall report to the State Board of Education the number of high school students in the district who are enrolled in accredited courses (for which high school credit will be awarded upon successful completion of the courses) at any community college, together with the name and number of the course or courses which each such student is taking.
The provisions of this section shall also apply to board of director districts.
Notice of intent not to renew a contract must be given in writing stating the specific reason therefor by April 1 of the contract year unless the contract specifically provides otherwise. Failure to do so will automatically extend the contract for an additional year. Within 10 days after receipt of notice of intent not to renew a contract, the superintendent may request a closed session hearing on the dismissal. At the hearing the superintendent has the privilege of presenting evidence, witnesses and defenses on the grounds for dismissal. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to a district under a Financial Oversight Panel pursuant to Section 1A?8 for violating a financial plan.
(Source: P.A. 95?496, eff. 8?28?07.)
Hinton has the obligation, and the responsibility, to “have charge of the administration of the schools under the direction of the board of education, and . . . make recommendations to the board concerning the budget, building plans, the locations of sites, the selection, retention and dismissal of teachers and all other employees, . . .”. It was Hinton’s responsibility to deal with the nonperformance of teachers and all other employees – including the Controller/Treasurer. That he did not, and the board had to intervene in the case of Cahill, implies that Hinton did not fulfill his statutory duties and responsibilities. He needs to be held responsible for not performing his duties and that is up to the Board. Let’s hope they take the action necessary (fire Hinton) to get this mess resolved.
Dr. Kilpatrick is the current Superintendent of the Morton school district. For Cahill to attempt to smear a currently seated superintendent of a nearby district is pretty reckless behavior.
Peo Proud: Yes, I think you’re right about Terry and Gary–people’s reactions to them are very much the same. I don’t know Gary but I do always listen to his message because I believe he’s often right on target. I guess both Terry and Gary perhaps would reach more people if they changed their style, but then they wouldn’t be Terry and Gary.
I’m just curious again about the Tammy Rusk (Rust) situation–which I know opens some old wounds. But wasn’t there a similar situation at the time in that the treasurer and superintendent had early reported a balanced budget–everything AOK–only to discover that there was actually a deficit? I was paying more attention to educational matters in the district at the time–and typically didn’t pay as much attention to the money.
PrairieCelt: Ditto on everything you said. Hinton needs to go. If you look back at the outrageous things he has done (and the board allowed him to do) like buying Prospect houses, the people he has hired, his consultants, shortening the school day when research proves you should not, etc… It’s unbelievable he is still there. The buck stops with Hinton regarding the budget, period.
Good point, Sharon. I like to think that my mind is much more open in the last few years and I less swayed by who is talking and more focused on the words and rationale being employed.
Regardless of perceived performance issuses, I do not believe Hinton will be let go. When did he state he was retiring? Has a new superintendent search begun? It is going to be difficult to find an attractive candidate that wants to walk into this mess. It is really going to cost!
On another subject. I have heard very little word regarding the new principal at Richwoods. What is the word on the street regarding his performance thus far.
Hinton’s retirement date is set. I think he has only one more year. We haven’t heard much about the search lately but I am fairly sure it is ongoing. There was some confusion about how soon the new one would be hired so that Hinton could train him. I had interpreted one media’s early report of the board’s discussion to mean that the two could possibly work simultaneously for several months up to a year. Board members straightened me out immediately–and Jim called me to explain that the earliest would probably be the July before Hinton’s retirement. Therefore, I think any talk of removing him early is just not feasible. We don’t need another hurried decision or decisions made by an interium superintendent.
My suggestion was that they start looking at successful superintendents who are not actively searching for a job–to lure them to 150. I am convinced that the gene pool of superintendents that are out of a job will not provide 150 with good choices.
I haven’t heard any negatives about Richwoods.
Sharon, yes there was a problem during the 2002-04 timeframe with balancing the budget. The reason – the BOE finance committee chair took it upon himself to craft a budget for the District – which the administration pretty much was compelled to use. The only problem – the person forgot to include a couple of million in expenses like salaries, benefits, etc. Because that person was an ambitious BOE member, taking public responsibility for his mistakes was not an option. So, the administration had to take the blame for something they didn’t do. In addition to resolving real budget issues and trying to right-size the district, the team had to quietly “fix” the BOE finance committee chair’s mistake, making it look to the public as though there was more red ink than there was.
Sharon, I’m sure you haven’t heard this before but it is the truth. When board members are involved in the making of large mistakes, the administration has to fix the mistakes and make sure they never come to light.
Good info – Sharon & PrairieCelt.
I agree Sharon, I do not think they should hurry Hinton out. I would rather the Board search out a qualified replacement.
Prairie Celt: I know we are dredging up ancient and very controversial history. I think clearly that you and I were on opposing sides for that history. Many people whom I hold very dear were not on the same side as I was. Again, I was not as “in on” the budget side of the controversy–except maybe with regard to Title I money (an issue I know has two very different sides). I’m sure that I will never know for sure what the truth is about that budget. Because Dr. Royster’s lawsuit was pending for several years, rumors are all that we had or have. Because that lawsuit was dropped, there will never be a “legal” truth.
Admittedly, I was on the side represented by the majority of board members who had the final say in Dr. Royster’s departure. Therefore, that would put me on the side of the “ambitious” BOE member of whom you speak–and it isn’t difficult to figure out who that is/was. I don’t remember the whole saga–but recall many of the pieces that I put together to form my own opinion. I believe I am correct–again if memory serves me and it often doesn’t–that the problem occurred in part because the Royster administration had not completed the budget in a timely fashion. Therefore, it is possible (and I seem now to recall that it was) that the board or I guess it could have been one board member who crafted a budget–which was demanded by the state, right? If mistakes were made in that budget, I find it difficult to believe that the BOE members voting on the minority side would have protected the “offending” member’s mistake. Surely, there must be rules about who can legally create the budget–administration or BOE. Were those rules broken and how can that be? I am groping in the dark of my own ignorance? Didn’t the board as a whole have to vote on the budget and was the vote split–I don’t remember?
I admit I am finding that part of the story difficult to believe. When you say “I’m sure you haven’t heard this before, but it is the truth,” I admit I’m finding it difficult to accept as truth something I’ve heard from only one anonymous person.
I am truly stumped by your contention that the administration has to fix the mistakes of the board members. Would that be out of fear of being fired–I guess there could be no other reason? (In which case, when dealing with taxpayer money, I would expect the administrator to go with the truth). I think the reverse has often been true–in previous and maybe current administrations–that board members would remain quiet and/or fix the mistakes of administrators.
Well, I’m just convoluting an already convoluted situation–convoluted because it never really had an end. I don’t know if any knows or ever will know the whole truth. We all know the truth as we saw it–and I certainly don’t profess to know the truth, just my perception of the truth.
I hope everyone learned from that unfortunate piece of District 150 history–and for that reason it doesn’t hurt to take a look at it now and then so that history doesn’t repeat itself. I guess that is why so many of us are screaming for transparency now and why for the first time in 150’s history, the budget (through the newly appointed budget committee) might be explained in such a way that the public can understand it enough to regain trust in a district where trust has been lost.
I have yet another observation and/or question about the PJS quote below.
Does anyone else believe that this could be the sole reason that Cahill was fired (and the other more legitimate reasons may have just been excuses for firing him)? Didn’t I hear that Cahill would still have had to sign financial records for the bond sale for the Harrison School project–and isn’t it possible that the adm and BOE were afraid Cahill wouldn’t sign them?
“Also at issue was whether Cahill would sign some financial records needed to complete a bond sale for the new Glen Oak School project. The matter came up after the School Board announced it was not moving ahead with plans to merge two high schools next year and that at least some of the primary school closings may not happen, despite facing a current budget deficit of up to $4.3 million and possibly $9.2 million next year.”
So, Sharon, you are saying that at least part of the reason Royster was ousted is because of the budget…. Good! Then Hinton must be next!
Sharon, you really do need to make your posts shorter….. geesh…
I am fairly sure that the budget is a major part of the reason. Sorry about the length–it’s that old saying, “I would have written you a short letter but I didn’t have time.”
LOL Sharon, I’m just ribbin’ ya…
…” Oh No! Mr. Hinton look! On the horizon, an angry mob of villagers, parents and taxpayers! They have flaming torches, pitchforks and documentation of your inadequacies as a superintendent! “
Erika – that doesn’t phase him.
Sharon, you are correct when you said rumors are all you had.
Which budget wasn’t completed on time? The budget for ’02-’03 was completed and accepted before Garrett retired in June. There were issues with that budget which had to be resolved.
In ’03-’04, the budget was completed in a timely fashion.
The real problem came in ’04-’05. A great deal of research and preliminary work went into a detailed report, setting forth specific strategies to right-size functions and make cuts in order to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. This included right-sizing the student-to-teacher ratio in accordance with the letter of agreement between the PFT and the district. This document was reviewed by the Peoria Community Foundation (including Glen Barton), and was not only approved but praised. Among the strategies was one that reduced, utilizing attrition, 42 teaching positions. When this document was presented to the Board in Executive Session, one of the BOE members waived it around in the air and said that it was junk and wouldn’t even read it or give any credence to it at all.
Enter Ken Hinton in August/September 2004. One of the first things Hinton did was to restore the 42 reductions, create new positions and staff them. This was an extremely expensive undertaking and the beginning of major financial problems. Then, because the BOE hired Hinton who was not certified/qualified to hold the superintendency, they had to bring in Fabish (who left after a few months), and then Fischer and Hannah as co-superintendents. Paying three superintendents was very expensive and created more red ink.
To be honest, I really don’t care whether you believe what I wrote or not. I am not the only person who knows this – there are many others, including Board Members. Whether they have the courage to speak up is for them to decide.
Anyone who ever worked inside the Admin Bldg on Wisconsin knows that you never ever question or criticize the Board. There was a case in the early 1990’s when a building principal did something along those lines and was demoted to a classroom teacher, at the specific behest of the Board. This individual filed suit against the district and won – the district had to compensate the individual at the same rate of pay as the individual would have earned as a building principal for as long as the individual was employed. Do you remember that case? The administration tried to convince the Board not to do this, but they didn’t listen. This is all about power – who has it and who doesn’t. In school districts, the Board of Education has complete and sole authority to hire and fire. The administration can only recommend certain actions be taken. Fear? You bet.
Prarie Celt: I was being a bit modest when I said that all I had was rumor–but certainly all I have right now is a poor memory. I don’t know if my desire to retrieve the memories is strong enough to ask questions of those who do know some of the details–about the Royster budget in question. I do know that there were two very strong sides to both of these stories–and probably it’s a case of his side, her side, and the right side. One thing for sure that I will admit is that many of the things for which Royster was criticized have been carried on by the present administration (academic decisions and probably budgetary). Therefore, there have been few if any gains–quite possibly the situation has gotten worse. I’m not saying that I don’t believe you–any more than I take for gospel the things I heard from the “other” side. There are things I knew from my own experience and that of others that caused me to form my opinions (but not about budgets and finances, etc.) That era did end (maybe not) with many unanswered questions and disappointments–and bitter feelings.
Of course, in my 43-years of teaching I know all kinds of retaliation stories, etc., about people being treated unfairly and about some who got away with things that should have been punished (too many to count). I guess Terry Knapp could be a prime example of retaliation that backfired–because Terry didn’t run from it; he sought justice that paid off for all of us.
I do believe things are better now. Certainly, a good many teachers have been criticizing the board and administration–more than ever before. I just hope that this is the beginning of a new era so that something like the Royster era (from either the pro or con point of view) couldn’t happen again. I believe transparency and change can come because of FOIA information, from blogs like this one, etc.
Can you imagine how things might have been different if people could have written anonymously on this blog and carried on a dialogue (sharing information, “rumors.”, etc., to be verified) during the Royster era. The story might be completely different. I believe that administrators and board members of the past have been able to keep controversy quiet–I don’t think that is as possible any more.
Collectively the responders on this blog have proven that they know bits and pieces of information that put together give us a fairly strong idea (even factual) of how things are working in District 150, city and county government ,etc. You and I have different perspectives on the Royster era because there were two sides–and I am smart enough and fair enough to know there are truths and fiction on both sides. It’s weighing them in the balances that makes the situation difficult.
Sharon,
Just what is it that is causing you to beat this Royster era drum the way you are? She’s history, she’s been humiliated, she’s been smeared by the PJS from the day of her arrival and then long after she left Peoria. Why not redirect your energy toward ousting Hinton and his consultant cronies? At least Cahill’s shenanigans have come to light – I wonder what other roaches might run from 3202 N Wisconsin if we keep the light on!
Without malice: You’re right.
Sharon, you might want to withhold judgment on how much things have improved. There may still be retaliation against employees who have spoken out against a proposed action. Staff won’t find out until their performance evaluations are done and my fear is that some will be given evaluations they don’t like.
Prairie Celt: You’re right about performance evaluations–hopefully, anyone receiving such retaliation will get the support they need to keep them from being fearful of speaking out.
PraireiCelt: I would like to know more about the principal being demoted to teacher due to retaliation. You know me. But I do not want to say here.
Yes, Prairie Celt: Was it the principal who was demoted for having a political speak at the school during election season. I remember only bits and pieces–it was quite some time ago, right?
Without Malice: I think Cahill started this conversation (that ended up being too much about Royster) when he said that the same budgetary methods had been used for the last 14 years–just trying to recall the previous treasurers and any problems that were made public.
There may be retaliation? Oh, I think that is happening now… some teachers I know are being persecuted!