Main Township High School District 207 in suburban Chicago is having a serious budget crisis. According to the Daily Herald, they are looking at cutting 137 jobs, 75 of them teachers. Why?
After months of alluding to an “accounting error” that led to a larger-than-anticipated deficit that year, District 207 administrators last week explained how it happened.
The district’s current leaders learned last July – weeks after Superintendent Joel Morris and Assistant Superintendent for Business Pamela Schau [emphasis added] retired – that a projected deficit of $3.8 million for the 2008-09 fiscal year was actually $10.3 million.
Pamela Schau became the Comptroller/Treasurer at Peoria Public School District 150 right after she retired from District 207 in July 2009, replacing Guy Cahill. The Daily Herald article continues:
What officials didn’t anticipate was the additional $6.5 million deficit due to the then-administration’s failure to include some expenses in that year’s budget, current Assistant Superintendent for Business Mary Kalou said.
Those missed expenses were salaries and benefits for some of the 12 newly hired teachers and teaching assistants and increased district contribution toward the Teacher Retirement System per changes made to the teachers contract – amounting to $2.4 million.
The district also saw a dip that year in property tax revenues – personal property tax receipts came in 1 percent lower or $1.5 million under what was budgeted and corporate property taxes were down $500,000 as per the report from the
free invoice template used by most of the business- that weren’t known until after Kalou joined the district last July 1.“It’s hard to say what they should, shouldn’t have done,” Kalou said. “Hindsight is always going to be 20/20. (With taxes) you can’t predict with certainty what that trend is going to be for … it was a reasonable amount to budget.”
Other contributors to the deficit were two unexpected early retirements – including Schau – that cost the district a $300,000 penalty under state law, and lower than expected revenues from the district’s book store, summer school and tuition, she added.
An anonymous commenter on the Daily Herald article suggested that District 207, under Superintendent Ken Wallace, “paid a nearly 200,000 penalty to TRS to hasten the departure of error-maker Pam Schau.” Consider the source on that last comment. Sometimes anonymous commenters are ignorant cranks with an axe to grind; other times they are conscientious citizens with insider information they could get fired (or compromise their source) for sharing on the record. Wallace was quoted in the June 26 (2009) Journal Star as saying Schau is a “really, really bright, talented person … genuinely a nice person, good people skills, good problem solving – Peoria would be well served, lucky, to get her.”
A request for comment from Ms. Schau was not immediately answered.
pardon my language, but I think it is appropriate…
“oh, shit”
And Sharon in 3….2…..1..
So, Emtronics, instead of giving Sharon a hard time, why don’t you tell us what you think about the situation.
And people wonder why we don’t trust 150 “hirers” who believe all the hype they read in resumes. Of course, employers are not always able or willing to reveal the “whole” story to perspective employers. However, the secrecy supposedly needed to protect the 150 candidates for superintendent raises some questions. The previous employer(s) can’t very well provide information to 150 if they aren’t asked for recommendations, etc. I would assume 150 can’t get information from a current employer if the candidate doesn’t want the employer to know she/he is seeking a new job.
omg. and the boe just extended her contract two more years. another reason to vote for Lickiss.
Yes, Emtronics, you were only one step ahead of me–I guess I’m too predictable. You made me laugh–in a good way. We all learn from our mistakes; there is every chance that Shau will do much better in Peoria. So we may as well be optimistic. She has a job that is safe from my scrutiny. Jim will have to be the watchdog. 🙂
Sharon said:
“And people wonder why we don’t trust 150 “hirers” who believe all the hype they read in resumes. Of course, employers are not always able or willing to reveal the “whole” story to perspective employers. I would assume 150 can’t get information from a current employer if the candidate doesn’t want the employer to know she/he is seeking a new job.”
This goes both ways Sharon – I question the “hirers” of teachers as well. Do they really know everything they say on their resume? How many of them can actually teach children to read past the 5th grade level; or, how many of them really know math beyond the 4th grade level? Why are 85% of our children graduating without basic reading and math skills?
Obviously no one here is an expert, and the truth is somewhat hard to discern, but on the surface it seems like a lot of the items that contributed to their shortfall were beyond the control of Schau.
i am sorry, but i missed the part where i a suppose to understand why Schau is a “really, really bright, talented person … genuinely a nice person, good people skills, good problem solving – Peoria would be well served, lucky, to get her.”
???
Emerge–I don’t disagree. If we want to face reality with regard to both issues (hiring administrators, superintendents, and teachers, etc.), then the truth is that 150 doesn’t have much choice–the pool of candidates who want to come to Peoria is probably very limited. However, in the case of teachers, the district doesn’t or shouldn’t trust any resumes–they see the transcripts of teachers (and of superintendents, I would assume). There is no excuse (other than a teacher shortage) for hiring a teacher with low grades, especially in courses related to his/her teaching major. Did you follow my advice to FOIA the teaching credentials of teachers who performance you question? However, that will only tell you their majors, etc–what they are qualified to teach. You can’t FOIA transcripts–but the district does have all of our transcripts on file at all times–so the district knows who is and is not qualified to teach a particular subject. I still maintain that some of the 85% (where did you get that figure?) aren’t learning because their classrooms are in chaos because of the discipline problems in some schools. I know it’s tempting to forget what happens at home–but home life, especially during a child’s first 5 years of life has so very much to do with the child’s development. That’s just a fact that we cannot deny. I don’t say that to blame parents–just saying that we just have to work harder to get the message to parents (often teenagers with their own learning problems) that they have to prepare their children for school–even if it’s just teaching them how to behave. 150 used to have high school courses in child development, home ec, etc., that did teach young people skills to be parents–but 150 gave all that up for bare bones basics–biggest mistake 150 ever made.
Lots of employers will no longer give ‘references’ or elaborate on an employees performance. Too much potential for lawsuits. It is entirely possible that District 207 wouldn’t have much to say to another employer.
I remember when I was still in a management capacity, the only queries we could reply to were; length of employment, confirmation of salary/wages, and position held. No comment could be given as to why someone left or the manner of their departure (fired vs quit vs retired). Absolutely nothing qualitative could be expressed.
The part about how much it cost the district for Schau to take an early retirement makes me wonder how much it cost dist. 150 for Hinton to take early retirement.
Some of the worst administrators were hired under Hinton. Some of the best were let go under Hinton. And this BoE allowed it all.
Sorry, C.J. I’m calling bullsh*t on this one.
Look at the paragraph you quoted. All it says was that the district learned about the deficit, and this happened after two specific people retired. As you know, just because B follows A, that does not mean A caused B. I think this paragraph should NOT have made it past the copy desk. For all I know, some drone on the copy desk rewrote it to say this.
The article does NOT say Schau made a $6.5 million “accounting error.” In fact, it does say this:
“School board President Edward Mueller acknowledged errors were made, but blames most of the problems on teacher salary increases that were built into the current teachers contract.
“Per the current four-year contract, which expires Aug. 15, 2012, teachers are guaranteed between 3 and 3.5 percent wage increases annually on top of yearly step raises for about 76 percent of teachers. Both certified teachers and teaching assistants are covered in the contract.”
Teacher salaries caused the deficit. Not an accounting error.
I really don’t know what to believe anymore. Umm-who vetted her? The new HR hire?
Billy, I agree that there may be more to the story–and that what C.J. has reported probably isn’t the whole story (negative or positive for Shau). But this is what blogs do–bring all information to the forefront where it can be refuted or confirmed. Also, the shortfall existed because “someone” forgot to record the expenses–not necessarily because of the expenses themselves. They thought they had a surplus, so they spent it–didn’t that happen recently in 150? Also, I hope you believe what you say (that just because B follows A doesn’t mean that A is the cause). For the same reason, I disagreed with your statement on your blog: “she kicked major butt in San Diego, a tough, urban school district where she raised achievement scores. She did that by holding administrators, principals and teachers accountable. She’s also skilled in hiring people who are going to do a good job teaching inner city kids.” Can we say for sure that one person caused an improvement in achievement scores–are we sure that “kicking posteriors” is the cause? 🙂 Also, do we know that the improvement continued the next year and the year after, etc? Many of these gains are only for one year–look at the rise and fall of many 150 NCLB scores. Also, do we know how much the scores were raised?
C.J.
Maybe another reason why we need an administrator with a financial and business background to run an $150 million plus operation. Lickiss is correct except maybe not an MBA but successful experience in “how to run” an $150+ million operation with 14,000 students and employees.
You can always hire educators.
Similiar situation recently happened in Normal Unit 5. The CFO resigned last fall.
Sharon: That’s all I wanted to do, is make ya laugh. Then I get this from this troll “timeforethics” :”why don’t you tell us what you think about the situation.”
What does it matter what I think? Like what’s been said here already sums it up. You can read the news release any way you want and spin it too. Big Deal. I think we could hire from a local pool instead of going out nationally. I mean there must be someone out there that can count. As for what Emerge is saying about the hiring of teachers. I think there is a test in place already for teachers who get hired and can’t teach. It’s called tenure and it takes 5 years to make it after being observed and graded on their performance. I think that is plenty of time to rate a person on their teaching skills. Of course after tenure doesn’t mean that teacher will always perform greatly and maybe that is something that needs to be addressed. How to get rid of union teachers who do not perform but I don’t think that is an excuse for a student body that refuses to learn either.
As for this error in accounting, well, even District 150’s budget is complex and I for one couldn’t do it nor would I want that job with all the quarterbacks we have around here. In fact, if anyone could step up and do better, please do. Maybe the Board doesn’t know you exist??
Emtronics-
Sorry that you think I am a troll. Since you took the time to comment on the story I thought you probably had something to say about it. I was curious as to what your thoughts were. Sorry for being interested in what you had to say. Believe it or not I enjoy reading your posts and blog.
Emtronics–see, we did need your input–very good. Yesterday I found out that I was $100 poorer because I forgot to record my trip to the dentist, so I certainly understand bookkeeping errors–that’s why I was an English teacher.
It is sad to see how quickly gossip can be imprinted with an air of authority simply by posting it on the internet. I suppose the ignorance of the vitriolic posts that inevitably follow should be encouraging, to the extent that they delineate the audience that this type of material reaches. Sadly, I am too tired to travel to the Castle in the Air right now, so I must rely on Mr. Dennis’ rejoinder, the only sign on this thread that intelligent public discourse still struggles on beneath the firestorm.
I wonder, though, are individuals so full of vitriol these days that such a distant spark can ignite such arrogant rage? That they, who know nothing of the target or the situation, would rally such indiscriminate spite? It really is enough to make one want to move to Canada, eh?
Jack
I think you’re reaching, too, CJ – certainly with the headline. Oh, maybe I’m splitting hairs, but I think there is a difference between neglecting to account for a known expense and missing a projected revenue forecast. (speaking of which, this recently in the PJStar about CAT)
” Dave Burritt, vice president and chief financial officer, said less than a year and a half ago, when the company realized 2009 was going to be a bad year, it believed the low point would be sales and revenues of $45 billion, which would have been considered a significant drop from 2008’s record of $51.3 billion.
“Then we thought it might go as low as $40 billion. But anything less than $40 was unthinkable. And, of course, we came in at (actual 2009 revenues of) $32 billion. It was by far the worst recession any of our leadership team had gone through,” he said.
I guess, CJ, you could say Burritt made a $13 billion “accounting error”?
However, the Daily Herald article does point out a failure to include 12 new hires and changes to the district’s portion of TRS payments as part of the problem. Maybe it was an honest mistake – maybe the new finance person is blaming their predecessor, since she’s no longer there.
I had the good fortune to meet with Ms. Schau last year and discuss some budget forecasts (like a 9% increase to salaries/benefits for maintenance workers, a huge increase in the TORT fund for WC matters) and thought she was being very conservative. I believe she has been and will continue to be an asset to D150.
Billy, billi, bill, bill…
“Teacher salaries caused the deficit. Not an accounting error.”
Not to counter pejoritively, but Billy this is an ignorant statement. Not accounting for the teacher salaries in a spending plan caused the deficit would be more correct.
And, for those defending the error, please. it was her job, period. jon is correct that there is a MATERIAL difference in missing a revenue forecast and neglecting to account for known expenses.
1. “The district’s current leaders learned last July – weeks after Superintendent Joel Morris and Assistant Superintendent for Business Pamela Schau retired – that a projected deficit of $3.8 million for the 2008-09 fiscal year was actually $10.3 million.”
Seriously, who FAILS to mention well after the picture has been painted that there are holes in it? Who doesn’t tell your successor a storm is coming. think about the budget cycle…
2. “Around September 2008, the school board had approved a facilities plan with $3.8 million earmarked for capital improvement projects that year.”
this means a spending plan was adopted in the fall prior to retirement…with the wheels falling off well before the actual retirement.
3. “That was before the announcement of a nearly flat Consumer Price Index in 2008. CPI is the measure used by school districts to set the property tax levy each year to collect taxes.”
granted, but it’s not like BLS hides CPI data. anyone who operates in a PTELL enviornment can tell you they knew the bottom was going to fall out.
4. “What officials didn’t anticipate was the additional $6.5 million deficit due to the then-administration’s failure to include some expenses in that year’s budget”
that’s it, in a nutshell. and, ask most anyone in schools and they’ll tell you it is HIGHLY unorthodox to criticize former staff. to do so means the fire preceeded the smoke.
5. “The district also saw a dip that year in property tax revenues – personal property tax receipts came in 1 percent lower or $1.5 million under what was budgeted and corporate property taxes were down $500,000 – that weren’t known until after Kalou joined the district last July 1.”
i seem to recall d150 talking about corporate property taxes tanking, last February. since these are distributed by the state to districts, why would it take until July 1? Secondly, the receipt estimate on property taxes shouldn’t have come in lower. think about the conversation about the housing market and when they began and the timeline of budget development…conservative indeed.
It is difficult to separate vitriol from reality. I know that I worked in a building where the principal constantly told us that he didn’t want to hear any worst case scenarios (and criticized those offering them as vitriolic). However, failure to look at possible negative outcomes is one of 150’s major shortcomings. They start believing their own hype–never read between the lines. Anyway I don’t want to spoil my own wonderful mood, having just run into a former Manual student at Haddad’s. He told me that he and several other former Manual students–young men in their 40s– are volunteers at Manual, trying to make a difference. Knowing who these young black men are, I am not surprised to learn how much we agree on the root causes of the problems. I will do everything in my power to help these young men because they truly are some of the best and they care about the young people on Peoria’s southside. They are our reason to hope. The young man whom I ran into had a younger brother who was having some problems behaving (quite minor problems), but his mother told me she wanted to come to my class–to be there before her son arrived so as to “surprise” him. That she did–and he knew she was there to check on him, not on me. Needless to say, he was never a problem again. That’s the reason that these young men are such fine adults today–they had parents who cared how their children presented themselves at school. Anyway, my mood always changes when I visit with my former students. I know that many of you do not have any concept of the wonderful school that Manual was for most of my career–but these young men remember–and now they are trying to give back.
Dangling: My bad. I should have said “Teacher salaries caused the deficit. Not an accounting error, at least according to the guy quoted in the story.”
For a bit of trivia, Maine township schools, is where Hillary Clinton went to school.
It is generally one of the better run school systems in the state. I’m sure if it can happen there, it can happen anywhere.
“The article does NOT say Schau made a $6.5 million “accounting error.”
What is the job of a Assistant Superintendent for Business?
What is the job of the comptroller?
“that a PROJECTED deficit of $3.8 million for the 2008-09 fiscal year was actually $10.3 million.” (emphasis mine)
CJ asked:
“According to the Daily Herald, they (Maine Township District 207) are looking at cutting 137 jobs, 75 of them teachers. Why?”
Well, here’s what a related article in the Daily Herald had to say:
“District officials blame the deficit on a flat Consumer Price Index, the measure used by the government to determine the property tax levy each year. In the past, districts have seen a 3 percent to 5 percent growth in the index and they approved union contracts in expectation of similar future increases…
The union itself is facing criticism for its decision in December not to reopen the contract. The District 207 administration asked the union to forego a roughly 3.2 percent wage increase in 2010 and a 3.5 percent increase in 2011, which could have saved up to 55 jobs. Most teachers also get annual step increases based on years of service.”
So, the district made a bad call on a long term union contracts. Now, it’s revenues are much less (like everyone else) and since the unions won’t reopen the contracts (the district proposal would still allow most teachers to receive step raises based on years of service – just not an additional salary increase), the district is cutting mostly non-tenured jobs.
jon, et al;
the nitpicking and word smithing aside, my thoughts are it presents a seed of doubt. a seed of doubt in, at that time, the most critical hire the district faced. the issue here is something got broke on her watch but because of hiring liability concerns could not be disclosed by maine township and was likely not disclosed in the hiring process by her.
just as you would not intentionally hire a s*xual predator and place them in the classroom (unit 5) you would not hire a financial dsylexic and hand oversight of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars.
another interesting issue is the retirement aspect and public pensions. if she retired, then is she drawing a publicly funded pension and earning a publicly funded salary?
someone claimed a distaste for vitriol. please, it’s the lack of dissension that shows dysfunction. i think a reasonable person would expect some accountability, and in this case there is none other than to suggest ‘eh, we made a mistake’.
My apologies to “timeforethics”. Maybe it’s the new meds I’m on or maybe I am a defensive a$$hole. Not sure. Sorry for the rotten comeback. Excuse me while I insert foot in mouth. I guess it’s the nature of the blogger beast to be paranoid.
Well stated, DanglingParticiple.
According to the news article “Other contributors to the deficit were two unexpected early retirements – including Schau – that cost the district a $300,000 penalty under state law.”
I guess if I had been interviewing Ms. Schau for District 150 I would have wanted to flesh out WHY she was retiring early from a good school District and relocating to a new community in order to take on a demanding job in a financially strapped school district????
Can someone else with knowledge of the Illinois school administrators’ pension scheme explain to me why any school district would agree to allow an employee to “retire” early if it is meant having to pay a huge amount to fund a pension and/or associated penalties, unless they wanted to that person to depart??
Frustrated, your question seems quite reasonable to me. I didn’t know that Schau had “retired.” It’s my understanding that a person who retires from a “certified” position can draw that pension while taking a full-time job in a “non-certificed” capacity–and perhaps can work toward a second pension. It’s, also, my understanding that retired administrators in District 150 can come back as consultants and do the same thing–work as non-certified personnel.
Frustrated, school districts don’t “allow” an employee to retire early, but if the employee has that right (based on different combinations of age and years of service) and exercises it, the district is on the hook to pay in to the TRS system. See the public information summary on the TRS website:
http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/general/generalinfo.htm
I think your question in your middle paragraph is the more appropriate one. I’d like to believe those kinds of questions were asked and satisfactorily answered.
Dear Jon – Thank you for answering my question. It is clear from the site you provided that school districts are obligated to fund such early retirments. This was not clear from the news article and so I thought the action might be part of a severance package.
Even is she was asked (encouraged) to leave her last position, IMO that does not mean she is incompetent and therefore a wrong choice by District 150. As is so often the case when there is an error made by government, somebody must take the fall to appease the masses.
As so often is the case, I agree with your thought that I have some faith in the committee that selected her.
A friend who knows more than I do about 150 financial matters e-mailed these comments to me—just passing them on:
If the district, when they hired Pam Schau, followed their past practice, then as the Controller/Treasurer she is a noncertified administrator and pension contributions would be to IMRF, thereby allowing her, at some point in the future, to collect both a TRS pension (from contributions made on her behalf when she was a certified administrator) and an IMRF pension (from contributions made on her behalf as a noncertified administrator). I have no clue as to whether or not she is drawing TRS pension benefits while employed at District #150.. But this is basically what one consultant is doing because since his retirement and rehire by Hinton; he has been working a “noncertified” position and contributing to IMRF, so he will ultimately receive pensions from both.
You know, there is something a little “off” about the $300K TRS amount. According to online info,
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1N1-1177D45F34847158.html , Shau was hired by the District #207 BOE in February 2007. She left/retired June 30th, 2009. That Dist. #207 would be responsible for a $300K TRS pension contribution after only 2 or 2 1/2 years just doesn’t seem right.
I am not sure how much longer the early retirement incentives are going to continue. What everyone seems to forget is that the state of Illinois thought this was a cost-cutting measure–to get rid of older, higher paid teachers by offering them a deal for early retirement (and then they could be replaced by younger, first-year teachers at much lower pay). Now everyone seems to have forgotten this effort was supposed to save money. Maybe it didn’t turn out as planned or maybe the “savings” was spent instead of saved. Or maybe it saved the state money while costing the districts more–again out of my area of comprehension.
Are you not allowed to ask present/previous employer the questiion : WOULD YOU HIRE THIS PERSON AGAIN ? They do not have to give a reason ,just YES OR NO ?
$5 says that District 150 does the exact same thing and declined to give any information except to confirm whether the person worked for them.
As someone who is an employee more than an employer, I would sue the dickens out of a former boss that bad-mouthed me to a prospective employer.
just an “error”?? Really? If you believe that I want to talk to you about some bridges I have for sale.
Would someone explain why they had to pay $300,000. because she retired early ?
what is the Early retirement age ,etc ? Do they still get 100 %
You retire get a pension ,then go back to work and someone pays in more for you ? So should district 207 get a refund as she is working again??
Sounds like a scam !
Can someone update me on FOIA laws? It appears with Dist. 150 the first 50 pages are free. Each additional page is 15 cents. I know the law changed recently so want to make sure this is correct. Thanks.
strong1–That is correct–first 50 free and I think the rest at 15 cents. I just received FOIAd info but it didn’t go over 50 pages. Earlier I had paid 25 cents for pages over 10. Also, the number of days to fill the request has improved. Now it’s 5 business days and a possible 5-day extension.
Strong1: You can also request information on a CD for $.25 per CD. Lisa Madigan’s website covers the FOIA laws thoroughly. If it’s for D150, I would recommend you make the request directly to Stacey Shangraw to ensure protocol is followed. If your request is denied, you can follow up with Lisa Madigan’s office, but do so within 60 days.
The cited news article states that at least $2.3M of the deficit was caused by unexpected events occurring after the budget was created. $2M was caused by unexpectedly lower tax receipts that occurred after Ms. Schau’s departure. An unexpected 1% downward fluctuation in property tax receipts in 2008-09, especially given the current recession, certainly does not make the budget’s use of the district’s earlier estimate an accounting error. $300,000 was caused by unexpected subsequent expenses in the form of 2 early retirements, one of which marked Ms. Schau’s own departure – again not an accounting error. $2.4M apparently came from the salaries of newly hired teachers, potentially an accounting error, but this material does not tell us when they were hired, when they should have been accounted for, or who was responsible, all necessary information to assign blame to anyone. The source of the remaining $1.6M deficit is not specified, and so also cannot be termed an accounting error, let alone Ms. Schau’s, without serious additional investigation.
There is a glaring difference between intelligent disagreement and destructive gossip mongering. Nothing about the material cited in this post supports its irresponsible contention that Ms. Schau made a $6.5M accounting error. Indeed, the only text that suggests that she made an error is the unsubstantiated accusation by an anonymous poster that she is an “error-maker” – repeating such libel does not make it true.
Read before you speak, and think before you post, if you wish to avoid dysfunction. If you seriously care enough, try investigating the situation instead of making unwarranted and indiscriminate attacks. If you had even bothered to look at the full article, of which only a few excerpts are taken out of context above, before doing any more strenuous research, you would have noticed that it states, for instance, that the tax revenue shortfall was caused by the CPI announcement on December 31, 2008, obviously not Ms. Schau’s fault, and that the flat CPI would have put the district into a deficit that year even if the district had cut some projects from the budget. Do not pretend to understand the complexities of a $112 million budget without bothering to grasp even the basics of the situtation, and then try without any substantiating evidence to accuse a single individual of accounting errors.
It would seem, Sharon, that is not really so hard to distinguish the vitriol from reality after all. I would be more inclined to rely on Ms. Schau’s expertise than the unfounded vitriol in this thread, if only because when Ms. Schau left District 207, she left it with a cash balance of $100M, roughly 90% of its annual budget. As a result, when the unexpected $10M budget deficit did occur after her departure, the district was still left with $90M in the bank. That seems to be precisely the kind of financial management that District 150 needs, though it will of course not happen overnight. Peorians should be ecstatically grateful to Ms. Schau if the same happens to District 150 when she eventually retires here.
In the meantime, I will hope that this material is only being read by those whose aspirations only reach as far as dissension (which, i would argue, is not generally all that functional). It means that I am, as usual, wasting my breath encouraging more responsible, civil and productive public discourse, but that at least no one who would appreciate such discourse is being similarly disappointed.
Jack
Jack– Thanks for your vigorous defense of Ms. Schau. It’s unfortunate that Schau didn’t respond to requests for comment as I’m sure she could have cleared the whole thing up in just a few short sentences.
For what it’s worth, it was current District 207 administrators who called it an “accounting error,” according to the article, not an anonymous poster. You might want to “read before you speak” as well.
Thanks Sharon and TR64. CJ, thanks for sharing the article regarding the accounting error. We all need to keep a close eye on Dist. 150’s central office and board members. Look what happend when we took our eyes off them, they bought a bunch of houses and were planning on building a school without talking to the taxpayers first.
Mr. Summers, this post is titled “Schau made $6.5 million “accounting error” in previous job.” Although I am repeating myself (after I initially promised to leave it to Mr. Dennis’ comment, no less!), I will explain again. Nothing in the materials you cited supports your accusation. The article does state that District 207 administrators had for months been “alluding to an ‘accounting error'” in relation to the fact that the deficit was larger than expected. However, even if you take the article and the administrators at face value, neither source attributes any accounting errors to Ms. Schau, let alone quantifies or explains those errors. In fact, the article explains that $2.3M cannot be attributed to an accounting error (which alone invalidates your claim in this post’s title), explains that $2.4M might have been left out of the budget in error, but does not attribute that error to an individual, and fails to explain the source of $1.8M at all. Further, the article shows that external forces are generally the cause of the deficit, apparently an unusual event for that district, and that whatever else might have been going on with the finances, the district had a $100M reserve built up to cushion any shortfalls in its $112M budget, which shows much more foresight than the lack of prescience shown by the unexpected deficit.
You apparently disagree regarding the basis of your contention, and think the accusation you have leveled fair. So I would ask you where, based solely on the materials in your post, other than an anonymous poster and your own imagination, you can attribute an accounting error to Ms. Schau, let alone one worth $6.5M? Like I said, simply repeating it (again) does not make it true.
If you truly think Ms. Schau made some kind of accounting error in her previous job that would suggest that Peoria be concerned now, by all means investigate it and tell us. Quoting out of context excerpts from an article that does not itself reach your conclusion, and a statement that Ms. Schau has not responded to an inquiry yet (if she did commit some wrong, could we expect her to freely admit it? and if she did not, could we expect her to respond to every unfounded accusation?) hardly justify such a specific accusation. Mr. Dennis commented that part of the article you cited should not have made it past the copy desk. Your post certainly would not have (though perhaps that is assuming too much in today’s news industry).
My defense was not of Ms. Schau, but of rational sanity. You did not say that District 207 experienced an unexpected deficit right after Ms. Schau left, amid rumors of accounting errors. You did not simply raise a concern about an unexplained budget shortfall. In fairness, you did mention that the source accusing Schau of being an “error-maker” was suspect. However, you still lent authority to what you admitted might be rumor, and specifically accused Ms. Schau of making a $6.5M accounting error, in direct contradiction of even the selective materials you offered in support. You cannot be accountable for those of your readers who run away with a rumor as some have in this thread (which is what initially motivated me to comment after saying I’d leave it to Mr. Dennis), but you can be for what you tell them.
Jack
The cash balance was not created in 2 years because of her. If you can prove she created it in that short time frame then ,I would think we could apologize.
“My defense was not of Ms. Schau, but of rational sanity.”
Right, your lengthy diatribes are the picture of rational, Jack.
You do realize that budgeting is a function of accounting, don’t you? Seriously, you state you’re all about civil discourse but you’re doing nothing more than picking your logic and driving it forward with semi-truck abandon.
There’s more to support she was asked to leave then there is to support she simply retired. Your posts simply choose to discount the audience’s experience with how these things play out and assume we all live on CJ’s next post.
Quite Insulting.