Northwest Indiana Discussion

Gee Lois Lane, you complain the Board is spending to much money on raises insinuating the well is drying out, now you’re suggesting the board grow a back bone and pay their attorneys to fight Hendricks when they have been advised that there was a legal contract signed by an out of control former board and even thought the agreement was unethical, it’s still a binding contract. Seems to me the Board did the fiscally responsible thing setting out of court for perhaps a fraction of the cost it would have cost considering the amount of the agreement of the contract, plus the legal fees from both sides of the table the board would have had to spend. I would have love to see the board run Hendricks through the ringer is there was a chance for them to win, but I’m guessing the Board’s lawyers felt it was a case that could not be won. Everybody knows she is a leach, putting it though the court system wouldn’t change that.

The point I was trying to make was that SD 157 and SD 88 could join forces, and resources, and fight this woman in court. From what I read, she was working for SD 88 and still under contract with SD 157! That right there voids any agreement she had with SD 157.

Once again, I feel this school board has no backbone. They are afraid of the teachers union, and now a fired employee. Maybe we still have the wrong people in the wrong positions.

I don’t believe Hendricks was working for both Districts at the same time. The former board gave her a separation buyout contract that would have paid her I think about $250,000. When the new board took over they rescinded that agreement thus the reason why Hendricks is suing D157. There is no reason for D88 to be involved with this. D88 did retain Hendricks for this last school year because of her poor performance the prior year, but because D88’s board failed to inform in Feb if 2008 if their intention of not bringing her back for this past school year, her contract had an automatic roll over so D88 released her and had to buy her out also. D157 School Board is using a law firm in the Hendricks law suit and they must have advised the board that their case was week because of the contract language with was more than likely binding. So it comes down to, do I pay Hendricks a fraction of the law suit now or using some backbone, take it to court, piling up more legal fees when I know the chances are low that I can win in court costing D157 a lot of money. And had they done that, would a Lois Lane then blast the board for not settling out of court to save the taxpayers’ money. I know for a fact, this board would have liked nothing better to win this case in court but sometimes you just have to made decisions that are fiscally correct. I would have loved to see Hendricks squirm in court also and walk away with just a legal bill but considering a contract is a contract, I strongly believe Hendricks would have won. Seems she is always catching breaks and comes out smelling like a Rose “no pun intended”. Even the State Board of Ed renewed her certification after she let it laps, gave her an extension and then let it laps again. This allowed Hendricks to rob D188 also. Who I’m really upset with is the State Board of Ed who has failed to protect school districts and the kids by giving Hendricks her certification or what I would say “license to commit fraud”. They knew of her history in the past dating back to her years in East Hazel Crest.

I might add, this board you say has no backbone is the same board who rescinded her contract which prompted Hendricks to file this lawsuit. Guess they have some backbone.

In the post I pasted from the Times, it stated "before her resignation took effect in Calumet City, she became Bellwood Elementary District 88 superintendent". This alone constitutes a breach of her contract and all sorts of ethical issues. Was this a lie, or just bad reporting on behalf of the Times? If this is true, then perhaps the school board should consider another legal adviser. Oh yes, it is Odelson's firm, same as Calumet City. They don't even know what a courtroom looks like. All they do is settle out of court.

S.D. 157: Now this is how you negotiate a contract. Apparently S.D. 158 and the teacher's union are in accord. Not 4% for 3 years, but 2.79% for 5 years...Granted that's 13.95% total vs, 12%, but who knows just how much S.D. 157 will be giving away after the 3 years.

http://nwi.com/articles/2009/06/21/news ... 772bde.txt

It come to spending money doesn't it... yet let's look at the new additions to the schools. Not sure if you have driven by either D158 Memorial School and D157 Hoover School... but looking at the new buildings I would guess that D158 spent a LOT more on the new Jr High School vs. what was spent on Hoover... and who do you think is paying for that in D158.. the tax payer. My point isn't so much whether I agree or disagree with what D157 is paying the teachers.. my point is money being spent.

funnyman: This is exactly the point I was TRYING to drive home...

http://nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois ... 0c144.html

GM, Chrysler and Ford all are US car manufactures. GM and Chrysler needed bailout money... Ford did not. Just like car companies you cannot assume all school districts have the same financial situation. Have you checked D151’s balance sheet and budget? Are they in the red or black? D157 has been faced and fought many PTABs over at least the past 10 years. They have also had to refund money which is unfair since the school system does not set the assessed value that is being challenged. Even with all the PTAB appeals.. D157 has run in the black and has had healthy fund balances and has done a very good job of projections as far as income they will lose and new property that has come as new revenue. Let's just say that at the end of the D157 teacher's contract that if D157 is in the red.. You can say "I told you so". I will admit I was wrong and applaud you.

Your argument is invalid. SD 157 will just raise taxes. And they can do so annually at 6.99% without the need of a hearing.

Lois Lane… before you get into an debate about school finances… perhaps you need to learn about school finances. By LAW.. it is required to have a hearing to present a budget and to set the levies. So your comment about not having a hearing is completely wrong. Also, in a way you are correct… D157 as well as others will pass a levy that increases the tax by a very large rate as reported in the newspapers. What is not always explained or understood is that the increase ONLY applies to new property and for the most part new property does not come on the tax roles every year. Also. the state lawmakers over a decade ago has set tax caps that only allow taxing bodies to increase the levy at I believe about 3% or CPI the lesser of the 2 based on the CPI (consumer price index). Please don’t quote me on the numbers but the process is something like that. The problem was that municipalities that the law makers governed were exempt from the tax cap so only schools and libraries were affected. There is no way a resident in the District would see a significant tax increase unless the referendum was passed to allow this. I think if you were to investigate D157’s referendums… they have not had one for at least 6 years with the bulk of the money going towards the new building/remodeling. I encourage you to attend a budget hearings some day and even ask questions to the business manager to better understand school finances and those of D157.
What also confuses me is that you were stating some time ago that the school district will run out of revenue with stores being closed and houses being vacant but now you’re saying they probably won’t because they just increase the taxes by an outrages’ amount or at least somewhat imply that.

Except for what the 1991 tax cap PTELL has inflicted on what you have posted.
"In order to slow the growth of property taxes, legislators focused the tax cap on the governmental units’ property tax extensions, the amount of property taxes the school district received the prior year. Therefore, under PTELL, a school district’s property tax extension can increase annually up to 5% or the rate of inflation as measured by the All-Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI), which ever is less."

The higher percentage tax increase can only be captured with the "New Growth Provision"
Under the new growth provision of PTELL, the school district can capture the additional property tax revenue generated by the new property which is exempt from the tax cap for the first year. This means that new property including residences and business property such as office building, shopping centers, and industrial facilities will generate additional property tax revenues beyond the cap (Kersten, 2008). The property taxes resulting from new growth may or may not be sufficient to pay the costs incurred for the additional children in this instance, but are nonetheless important. However, the school district must levy for it the first year it comes onto the tax roles or be forever capped.

http://cnx.org/content/m18338/latest/

The bottom line... school systems are not on a yearly basis increasing their revenue as you suggest due to the PTELL and I will also add.. although the truth in taxation article you provided indicates that a hearing is not required.. D157 always has a hearing on the budget and levy.

Lois, sometimes you are totally clueless and this is one of those times. How does this smack of abuse??? The Board members go to conferences and get cash advances for meals. These cards replace cash. It is NOT an opened ended credit card that can be used for anything and everything. It is to be used for LEGITIMATE expenditures, such as food. There would be limits, such as the dollar amount and also places that it can be used for. I know a person who has such a card for use with the company that she works for. She said that there are blocks on the card so that it can't be used at certain places such as liquor stores or novelty shops. I would think that D157 would do the same thing. The other benefit of having the purchasing card is that the Board members aren't carrying money. I would assume that they would turn in the cards when they got back from a conference, so it's not like they could just use it anytime they want. It is STRICTLY for School Board business, which right now they get cash advances for School Board business. To me this is a much better way to track expenditures. The district doesn't risk possibly not getting the leftover cash back.

Lois Lane… why do you go out of your way to criticize D157? The old board under spell of Ken Taylor who forced former administrators out and brought in Hendricks deserved to be chastised and postings on the forum I would like to think help prevent those old board members from being re-elected. I can understand your comments about the 4% raises for the teachers.. some people may or may not disagree with you but considering the economy your opinion is justified. But now recently you have attacked the board for not challenging tax appeals which they have for years and in a lot of cases did so in partnership with D215 to share the cost and now you’re questioning the use of purchasing cards in lieu of cash advances? As Chugar52 stated.. this is not a credit card that can be abused such as the case of Charles Flowers at the Regional Office that has been in the news lately so what is your concern? Seems to me your just jumping to the opportunity to criticize this board for whatever reason. If you live in the district perhaps you should be glad that D157 is and has been working in black for as long as I can remember and that the percentage of property tax you are paying to support this school district is one of the lowest rates in South Cook County. You have questioned the academic performance of the schools but it has been reported that both schools have been making AYP in consecutive years although the state report card still shows they lag the state average but they are closing the gap. It’s called progress. The old “Taylor” board would not have been forced out by losing the election had not some of the current board stepped up and run for election/re-election. They have now hired a qualified and sincere Superintendent in Dr. Morris who has brought back respect in the District and repaired the low moral within the staff that was once evident when Hendricks was at the District.