D-80 phones to be finished by end of December

The new phone system will be installed by mid to end December as per Superintendent Paul O’Malley

District 80 submitted a statement of waiver on administrative costs that caused it to exceed the 5% cap, due to “circumstances beyond of the control of the district”.

DIstrict 80 is trying to get the Village of Norridge to send out an infographic the District 80 created showing where they claim most of the $10 million reserve was spent.

District 80 may also try to get Ridgewood to send the mailing.

(This seems to be a hot potato that nobody wants to take… could it be the District’s stated numbers are, shall we say… questionable?).

Recording of the December 11 2018 D-80 Board Meeting (until closed session, 27  minutes)


Village rams through red light camera contract, church property buy

Village signs contract with red light camera company, moves church property purchase forward

Just a few years ago, Village politicians, when asked about Harwood Heights’ red light camera program, derided them as revenue generators (which they are).

Cue to 2018 and all of a sudden these same politicians plan to move forward with them in Norridge. What happened?

Village elected officials including trustee Dominick Falagario admitted the Village didn’t have a list of the intersections where they planned to install red light cameras.

The only Village official who objected to the red light cameras and property purchase was Dominic Sulimowski.

When asked for projected revenue and location of the red light camera(s), Trustee Falagario claimed this information was not available.

If the idea was to place red light enforcement cameras in order to increase safety, wouldn’t you already know where you were going to be putting the camera(s)?

It’s a law in search of a crime. Are they even going to try to sell red light cameras in Norridge as being anything other than a money grab?

The contract with red light camera vendor Safespeed moved forward on a 5-1 vote, with Sulimowski being the only NO vote.

Divine Savior property purchase “boondoggle”

When the discussion shifted to the Village property purchase, Sulimowski was the only trustee to raise the burning question on everybody’s minds: where are they going to get the money for this land purchase?

We think the answer to this question (as well as the $15 million buildout) is going to be burning a big hole into our wallets, in the form of even more tax increases.

Sulimowski also brought up the fact that the Village purchased a piece of the show property from Harlem Irving Plaza mall owner Michael Marchese, and is now turning around and selling that property. He called the planned purchase of the church property a “boondoggle”.

Chmura and Falagario’s responses (or perhaps, “excuses”) had to do more with the Village buying the church property to prevent other developers from building 50 or 60 condos there.

Wait a minute, isn’t that what the zoning commission is for? Surely the building height for 50+ condos would require a zoning petition be approved?

Sulimowski raised the question: why shouldn’t there be condos there, or some other residential development that would put the property on the tax rolls?

Chmura’s response was any new property taxes would mainly go to the schools – apparently that’s a bad thing in Chmura’s mind.

Sulimowski objected to continuing with the vote until a proper plan was presented, and made the motion that it be tabled.

The motion was not seconded, and the ordinance passed on a 5-1 vote, with again Sulimowski being the only dissenter.

Chmura made a big deal about the resolution only authorizing the Village to “talk” to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago about purchasing the property.

However, the action item on the meeting agenda clearly states it is “authorizing the execution and delivery of a contract between the Village and the Catholic Bishop of Chicago to purchase certain real estate” and “authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this ordinance”.

Gus Rapatas raised concerns over the cost and the lack of a plan for the property, as well as questioning whether the Village’s “private” meeting with the Archdiocese was Open Meetings Act complaint.

Another resident who lives near the church property raised concerns about an increase in traffic on her block if a new Village Hall/police station is built there. She requested the Village involve the local residents in whatever is ultimately built.

Armed guards?

Armed guards at public comment?

One subtle but notable event was the appearance of armed Village police officers in front of Chmura who only appeared during the public comment.

Normally during meetings Norridge police officers stand at the open doors of the board room.

Nothing against the Norridge police officers who were obviously ordered to stand at attention for Chmura, but we do not believe our police should be used in this way. These kinds of optics could be perceived as discouraging public participation.

Mayor Chmura, if you have to have armed guards protecting you in the board room… could it very well be that you are part of the problem you so freely assign to others?

Recording of the December 12 2018 Village of Norridge Board Meeting (full video – 45 minutes)


Norridge to purchase part of church property

Norridge government to buy portion of Divine Savior property for new village hall, police station and more

Per this week’s meeting agenda, the Village will be moving forward to purchase an unused section of the lot owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago.

In addition to relocating the Village hall and police station, the Village will also be adding a women’s health center and a day care center, sources say.

In 2016, District 80 sought to purchase portions of the same property as part of its ambitious and ultimately unsuccessful $60 million dollar referendum.

The purchase price is said to be $1.5 million, plus an additional $15 million to build it out as per the current estimated figures.

How the Village government is going to pay for this, when they supposedly can’t even make the pension fund payments without raising taxes, will be the real question to answer in the coming weeks and months.

Should we expect more massive property tax increases to pay for the bonds (debt) will be needed to make this a reality?


District 80: spend big on security while keeping the gates open

Giles school Oriole Ave gate

Inability or unwillingness to keep the gates closed contradicts district’s claimed push to upgrade security

District 80 has been very talky about security upgrades at the school, from the phone system to building changes that will limit how far an unauthorized person can get into the school building itself.

All of which seems like reasonable upgrades. But the school has an existing security feature surrounding the school that it can deploy now: it’s called a gate and a fence.

A fence is a device consisting of metal bars, when arranged in a certain way, physically prohibits access to a given area. A gate is a gap in the fence which permits you to allow and control access in the fenced-off area. (Obvious explanations given for District 80’s benefit).

It’s likely the school would need to keep at least one of them open in the event the students had to exit the building quickly (a fire, for example), but why are all 3 gates being left wide open? Don’t students play in both of those areas?

A better solution may be for the district to modify the gates to allow for exit from the inside while prohibiting entry without a key or security badge.

Giles Cullom Ave big gate

However, why spend tens or hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to upgrade security at District 80 when its employees can’t, or perhaps won’t, keep at least some of the existing gates closed?

Perhaps no-bid hire and Giles principal Stephanie Palmer is too busy lavishing praise and photo ops on board members Frank Stoffel and Mike Bellafiore to be concerned about such trivial matters.

It may not concern her of at least three such incidents in the last year about the gates at Giles school being left open on school days.

Not serious about security?

For all the District’s (empty) rhetoric, they still aren’t taking security any more seriously now than before.

The Norridge Schools Foundation has recently acquired funding to address some security related issues at District 80.

However no amount of money from the Foundation nor any other source can buy what is in the shortest supply for District 80’s leadership – common sense.

Keeping the gates closed, while not costing the District anything on dollars, is apparently too taxing on the leadership’s limited intellectual capacity. Nothing new to report there.

Giles Cullom Small Side Gate

But elections are coming up in April. Should voters, especially parents, re-elect the same people in charge of this fiasco for another 4 years?


District 80 board moves forward with new phone system purchase

Board members spar over best phone system proposal, ultimately choosing California-based Ring Central

Board members spent 45 minutes debating the proposals after board member Warner DeJulio objected to the accuracy of the financial cost numbers as presented to the board, urging the vote be tabled until all alternatives had been evaluated.

DeJulio argued the “cloud” based phone system would not function in the event of an internet outage, and recommended looking into an on premise system as an alternative.

However the cost for a new on-premise system was well above the $50,000 budgeted for a new phone system, and the board moved forward with the cloud based solution by Ring Central.

These were all good points made by DeJulio, but was DeJulio’s interest in selling the District a more expensive product borne of genuine concern for the best solution?

DeJulio certainly knows his stuff – he’s a “Senior Solutions Architect” at his company, 312 Communications.

DeJulio’s company also provides communication services for the public sector. You know, public sector entities like school districts… we’re sure there could be no conflict of interest there… right?

DeJulio has reached out to us, denying any conflict of interest in a statement, saying he argued for the more expensive system because it is the “best option for safety, security and functionality” and that his company “had no interest in that contract”.

DeJulio has said the more expensive, on-premise quote given to the District was from one of his competitors, and he had “had zero interest financially or any other way in this deal”.

He continued to object to the Ring Central solution the District purchased as flawed, saying “running the phone system over an existing Internet connection isn’t reliable enough for mission critical applications like E911 for example”.

Other highlights

The new special education director provided a status report presentation of the new special ed services department. The District recently took itself out of the LASEC cooperative, and brought special education in-house.

There was a presentation of what is claimed to be a financial breakdown of where the majority of the $10 million reserve was spent.

We aren’t going to take at face value any figures presented by District 80 while the current board leadership and administration is in place.

Even if we were to accept their claims, at the end of the day, it’s an attempt to “justify” their overspending. Cover for years of burning reserves for operational expenses.

An unbalanced budget plus excuses is still an unbalanced budget. Numbers don’t lie or care why the money was spent.

It was several years before District 80’s “leadership” started to take the deficit seriously.

The District 80 board, and its financial consultant Craig Schilling, are slapping themselves on the back for getting closer to a balanced budget. Except… a balanced budget is to be expected of a public body.

Schilling mentioned that District 80 isn’t so bad compared to other schools he has deal with.

OK Craig, we’ll take your word for it… but it’s irrelevant. This is Norridge and Harwood Heights. We should never accept anything less than fiscal responsibility from our schools… or from any other government body.

Given all those years of overspending, and outside of any historical context, it could be considered an “achievement” to be so near to balancing the budget.

But we can not and will not ignore the past: 10 years and counting of deficit spending.

Show us a real balanced budget… show us 3 years of financial actuals in the black (including deposits to the reserve fund)… then maybe you will have something to praise.

Recording of the November 20 2018 D-80 Board Meeting (until closed session, except for the security vulnerability presentation – 1 hour 30 minutes)


Village plays the blame game with pension fund shortfall

Village officials blame everybody but their own policies for pension funding shortfall as justification for property tax increases

If you listen to village officials defending their decision to hike property taxes by 35% this year, they’ll point fingers at Springfield, the previous disgraced actuary… but never their own policies.

While it is no doubt Springfield has contributed to the problem (see the “Edgar pension ramp”), neither Chmura nor any other village official will admit the major reason for the pension funding shortfall: higher salaries and benefits for employees.

Only the new actuary “dared” to mention this critical fact.

We previously reported how the Village paid the pension payments out of the general fund in previous years, but has since shifted the burden entirely to homeowners.

“Village Administrator” Joanna Skupien, reading from a prepared statement at the November 14 tax levy hearing, stated how the Village would supplement the police pension payments from the general fund “if financially able to”.

Major James Chmura, just this year, raised the Norridge sales tax to 10.5% . Yet by Village officials’ own admission, and supported by the Village’s financial documents, not a penny of that tax increase has gone into the police pension fund.

Where is all this sales tax money going?

Village property taxes going up

Skupien’s statement indicated the average property tax increase for homeowners would be $35 next year, however public bodies are notorious for under reporting tax increase numbers in order to “sell” tax increases.

Based on our calculations, however, depending on your home assessed value (as determined by outgoing Cook County Assessor Joe Berrios), as well as the median home value in Norridge, it’s going to be more like between $50 to $100 higher next year, based on current property assessment trends.

This may not seem like a lot (unless you’re fixed income). But this is just one of the many public bodies on your tax bill.

For example, these pension payments only cover the police pension fund, not the firefighters and EMT (ambulance) pension fund, as the Village of Norridge does not provide fire and ambulance services, as many other municipal governments do.

The concern however is this 35% increase year over year has opened the floodgates for a substantial ramp up of the Village portion of our property taxes, every year.

The actuary recommended a pension payment of $2.1 million for next year, which means the $1.6 million isn’t enough.

As the pension funding level has dropped to 55.67% this year, the recommended amounts in 2020 will no doubt be higher, perhaps much higher.

So that means we may be looking at another 35% or greater tax increase in 2020. And because the Village is “home rule”, it can raise taxes any amount without a referendum.

It’s not the $50 increase for next year… it’s the $100 or $200 or $500 increase the year after that.

We only have to look at Chicago to see how their property taxes have increased under Rahm Emanuel, for the same stated reasons: pensions.

It may have not been much the first year, but the snowball got bigger and bigger year after year until it really stated to hurt.

Overspending the issue

All in all, the Village’s song and dance over the property tax increases, sounded like a bunch of excuses to continue overspending.

As the new actuary admitted, there’s no evidence previous actuary Tim Sharpe made decisions that adversely affected Norridge’s pension fund investments.

Neither Sharpe, nor Springfield, are responsible for the high salaries and benefits.

There is nothing in the Illinois constitution that requires or guarantees salaries or benefits for current employees. The village could freeze salaries (as we and others have advocated) as well as having employees to pay more for health care benefits.

The village could also reduce, even modestly, the size of its patronage army, and implement a real anti-nepotism policy. They could hire people only when there is a job requirement, not because a Village employee’s family member needs a job.

They could outsource certain kinds of work that don’t really need to be performed by Village employees.

This would, however, require Village politicians to care more about municipal finances overall, than keeping their regime in power.

Apparently, that’s too much to ask from Norridge’s politicians.

Recording of the November 14 2018 Village of Norridge tax levy hearing (full video – 19 minutes)


Results show strong local opposition to D-207 tax increase

District 207 referendum wins big in Park Ridge, but fails bigger in District 79’s area

If District 207’s tax increase referendum were only held in District 79, it would have failed by a large margin.

Unofficial numbers show total results at 27,671 in favor with 17,718 against.

But in the area of unincorporated Norwood Park Township, Harwood Heights, and Norridge served by District 79, the numbers were 992 NO to 576 YES.

Paul Hanley of George K Baum recently “advised” the District 79 board to wait until presidential elections in 2020 in order to take advantage of high Democrat Party turn out. Democrat voters are generally more supportive of tax increases, according to Hanley.

However the recently concluded congressional midterms and governor election of 2018 also had relatively high turnout, yet local voters rejected the D-207 referendum by a nearly two-to-one margin.

Taxes and taxpayer money laundering

At the District 207 board meeting on November 5th, residents expressed concern with large campaign contributions made to the YES 207 political action committee, including George K Baum, calling for an ethics investigation, as llinois law forbids public funds being used in referendum campaigns.

The law in question is the Illinois Election Interference Act (10 ILCS 5/9-25.1), which states that “No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated for political or campaign purposes to any candidate or political organization”.

The board did not address the issue, continuing on without missing a beat, confident its taxpayer-funded campaign would achieve the desired result… and they were correct.

Other residents spoke out about continually rising property taxes in the area, and requested a change in leadership at District 207.

District 207 has been consistently ranked as having some of the highest paid school employees in the entire state. Now the homeowners get to pay for it all.

Concerned homeowners in the District 79 area aren’t entirely without options however. A meeting held by regional superintendent Mark Klausner in September brought up an option of changing the high school feeder from D-207 to Ridgewood.

Residents in District 79 concerned about rising property taxes can also support the consolidation movement, which seeks to combine District 79 and 80 into a single school district, eliminating unnecessary duplicate costs, and making the grade schools operate more efficiently by sharing resources.

In life nothing is guaranteed except for death and taxes.

In Illinois we know that taxes are guaranteed to rise until we say NO… NO MORE TAXES.

This article has been edited to reflect changes in the unofficial voting numbers.

District 207’s recording of the November 5 2018 board meetting, public comments start at 22:40


Park Ridge watchdog exposes taxpayer money laundering to D-207 PAC

Schools exploiting loophole in campaign finances laws to channel taxpayer money to pro-tax increase political action committees

Our schools seemed to have found a loophole in campaign finance laws that would prohibit tax money going toward campaigning… just launder tax money through private companies.

And they are sailing boatloads of taxpayer money through this loophole.

Park Ridge-based PublicWatchdog.org has exposed D-207’s channeling of taxpayer funds through some of 207’s vendors.

Wight & Company, Frank Cooney Company and George K Baum are all vendors District 207 has used who have contributed to the pro-tax increase PAC “YES 207”, according to campaign disclosure documents.

In the case of George K Baum, they were paid $75,000 in January for “community engagement” services, and sent nearly $8,000 to the YES 207 PAC as of November 1st 2018, the largest contribution of the three.

George K Baum is the same Baum who was involved in the District 80 tax increase referendum, and wants to get involved in a future District 79 referendum.

Last day to vote is election day tomorrow, November 6.

 

 

 

 


Norridge to hike property tax levy by 35%

Village to hold tax levy hearing Nov 14 as property taxes surge 35%, the highest year over year increase in a decade

Better watch what you spend on Christmas gifts this year, as Norridge Mayor James Chmura is planning on a big increase in the Village’s property tax levy.

James Chmura is hiking property taxes by 35%

The 35.5% increase marks the most dramatic one-year rise of the property tax levy in 10 years. By comparison, from 2013 to 2017, the tax levy under Chmura rose a total of 18%.

In 2013 the levy was $997,000; this year (payable in 2019) it will climb to $1.6 million, the highest levy since Norridge started levying property taxes.

That’s a 60% percent increase since Chmura took over. Has your income gone up 60% during that same period?

Not a dime of this $1.6 million is going towards roads, or sewers, or anything else we may need, it’s going directly to employee pensions.

The James Chmura regime will do his best to pull the wool over our eyes by claiming he “has” to raise property taxes to pay for pensions, as it’s required by law to fund them fully by the year 2040.

However, that would be false and misleading… while the pensions do have to be funded by law, they do not have to be funded from property taxes.

Why does Village even have a property tax levy?

Prior to 2009 the village didn’t levy property taxes. Pension contributions were paid out of the general fund; in 2008 that was $540,000.

The “general fund” comes from sales taxes, income tax sharing and similar taxes.

After the stock market crash of 2008, the village levied a property tax to “help” pay for pensions, so they said.

Then-mayor Ronald Oppedesiano also claimed it was “temporary”, until markets recovered.

However, per the Village financial documents, Norridge actually eliminated the general fund contribution from fiscal year 2010-2011 onward.

Since 2013-2014 there has only been small contributions from the general fund, anywhere from $26,000 to $100,000, far below the property tax levy. Now, they have been eliminated once again.

During that time, the property tax levy for pensions went from zero, to $1.6 million dollars a year.

Village goes on a spending spree – on our dime

But hold on a minute – this is for the “police pension”… does that mean you are against our police?

If you’re familiar with Internet memes and abbreviations, the one for “laugh out loud” (LOL) comes to mind right about now.

Politicians love to hide behind police and fire departments to justify tax increases. They always put them up front as shields to excuse their wasteful spending. Don’t fall for it.

The Norridge Improvement Party regime didn’t levy a property tax to “help” the pension fund. What they did was shift funding from sales tax revenue to property owners, creating a new burden on us that didn’t exist before.

Why? Because Mayors Earl Field and Oppedesiano were too busy creating jobs for their political cronies, including their own family members.

For Oppedesiano, it was Anthony Valentino, his brother in law. For Field, it was his son Brian J Field, who remains a highly paid public works employee.

If it’s not the Fields or the Oppedesianos, it’s the Gaseor family or the Rein family. For James Chmura, it’s giving out no-bid patronage jobs to the Fanelli family, the McGready family, or the Avino family.

Or handing out huge raises for long time party loyalists like now “Village Administrator” Joanna Skupien.

Or giving out MILLIONS to business interests of Harlem Irving Plaza CEO Michael Marchese, a NIP campaign contributor.

On and on and on. And these are just a few of those who have benefited from this regime of corruption and nepotism.

In short, Village politicians got greedy, and made us pay for it – because they could. And pay for it we have the past 10 years.

The stock market has rebounded in leaps in bounds the past several years. That means the investments in the police pension fund should be doing better than ever.

Yet the “police pension” property tax levy continues to increase nearly every year. What happened to that “temporary” tax?

Unlimited power of taxation means unrestrained tax and spend policies

How is the Village able to raise taxes without the consent of the people? District 80, Pennoyer and Ridgewood have all tried to raise property tax levies in the past 10 years, and had to go through the voter referendum process.

The Village, however, is “home rule” municipality. As such, they are not limited by the Property Tax Limitation LAW (PTELL) which restrict public bodies annual property tax increases to around inflation… in recent years, it’s about a few percentage points.

A home rule municipality like Norridge doesn’t have to seek voter approval of any tax increases.

But Home Rule is not an entitlement – home rule is only automatically granted to larger municipalities by default, and Norridge had to get theirs by voter referendum. It’s a privilege the Village government enjoys, so long as we, the voters, allow them to possess it.

It’s bad enough the State raised income taxes last year to pay for unsustainable state pensions. It’s bad enough “Crook” County raised sales taxes to pay for equally unsustainable pensions, or “Queen Sugar” Toni Taxwinkle’s crazy sugar tax last year (one of the few taxes that was actually repealed).

Ever the tax and spend politician himself, James Chmura raised the Norridge home rule sales tax this year, via, you guessed it, the Village’s home rule authority.

We now pay 10.5% sales tax. But this tax hike was not “not enough” for Chmura’s voracious appetite for taxpayer dollars. Gotta feed dose party loyalists, yo.

All these taxes at the state, county, and local level take a big bite our of our wallets.

We don’t need our local governments burdening property owners even more.

What are the solutions?

As far as we’re concerned, there is no justification for a tax levy at all, let alone an increase!

Based on this trend, and the fact that Chmura wants to spend $8 to $12 million on a new police station we don’t need, it seems clear that taxes will continue to rise in the years to come – perhaps substantially.

What can we do to fix these issues?

How about we start by making politicians accountable? This behavior continues as voters haven’t “thrown the bums out”.

The other more direct way, is we could simply repeal home rule by voter referendum.

If Village politicians are going to abuse their home rule authority – perhaps it’s time we take it away from them, and with it their unlimited power to tax.

Do you think you pay enough tax, or want to pay more?

Let’s give voters a chance to weigh on whether their taxes should go up to support James Chmura and his Norridge Improvement Party’s nepotism, cronyism, and bloated patronage army.

The tax levy hearing is November 14 6PM at the Village Hall.


District 80 board president plays politics with attack on volunteer

Not content with the financial destruction his policies have inflicted upon the district, D-80’s board president turns his sights on volunteer Lou Mezzano

You know the saying… no good deed goes unpunished.

In 2016, during the campaign to push their $60 million property tax increase, Superintendent Paul O’Malley passed around a bottle of dirty brown water that he claimed comes out of the sinks and drinking water fountains.

It was one of District 80 leadership’s many attempts at “pain points”, in their $60 million campaign of fear mongering.

When the time came to replace the drinking water fountains, parent Lou Mezzano, a licensed plumber, decided he would throw his bid in to do the labor work – for free. His only requirement was the District take care of any asbestos removal.

He proceeded to do the work, however the buildings and grounds supervisor Peadar Hurley didn’t want to open the walls, and so the work was not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant.

At District 80’s September 18 2018 board meeting (of which we were not present), District 80 Board President Srbo Radisavljevic lambasted Mezzano for not making his work ADA compliant, questioning Mezzano’s integrity, and indicating that it was going to cost the district to fix it.

Documents obtained from the District show a quote from DeFranco Plumbing for nearly $2,850 to address the ADA compliance issues, plus an additional $2,350 contracting out bricklaying work, not including asbestos removal.

An examination of the ADA law in question appears to only require only 50% of the drinking water fountains to be ADA compliant, and / or one per floor, a fact Mezzano noted at the October meeting.

Even if we believed DeFranco Plumbing’s quote, the “cost” is moot as Mezzano offered to fix the issue on his own time, holding the district harmless of its own incompetence.

During the winter, Mezzano also fixed two water lines at Leigh School for free, saving the District $3,000 by his estimate.

Mezzano, when asked his opinion of the ADA compliance quote, questioned the cost, as well as why DeFranco Plumbing was being paid to subcontract the bricklaying work, when Hurley himself is a union bricklayer.

Defranco Plumbing’s $30,000 in plumbing bills

A deeper look into DeFranco Plumbing’s past work for District 80, however, shows some very questionable charges.

Defranco’s invoices are interesting reading for those inclined to scrutinize, but we’ll focus on two examples.

Defranco (and District 80) seem to think it’s OK to charge for 3 hours of labor to drive to get a part, rather than shipping the part and only charging for shipping.

Routing drain pipes does not require a licensed plumber, but District 80 paid many thousands of dollars to Defranco on multiple occasions to do so.

Doesn’t sound like a good use of the District’s limited funds. In fact it sounds like more of the sort of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars District 80 is known for.

Political hit job

We are long past expecting any sort of reform, or even a change in attitude from Radisavljevic and his like minded lackey, board vice president Pasquale Biondo.

But the attack on one of District 80’s volunteers is a new low, even by Radisavljevic’s standards.

Lou Mezzano, though, isn’t backing down. During the October 16 2018 board meeting (recording below), he countered with the facts, having kept communications between himself and Biondo showing indeed he did offer to fix the issue for free.

District 80 Board President Srbo Radisavljevic

Even after being attacked by Radisavljevic/Biondo, Mezzano is still willing to do the remaining work at no cost, as long as the asbestos is cleaned up.

He’s even gone a step further, announcing he’s running for District 80 school board in 2019.

And that, readers, is the REAL reason for Radisavljevic’s attack on Mezzano: it’s politics.

Mezzano has expressed disapproval of the Radisavljevic/Biondo regime’s policies… as any reasonable person would.

He and four other like minded individuals are circulating petitions for next year’s District 80 board of education elections.

If Radisavljevic doesn’t win a seat next year (assuming he even runs, given his appalling record), he would want Biondo to continue his “legacy”, given the latter’s term ends in 2021.

This “legacy” is a huge, multi-year spending spree without a corresponding source of revenue, draining precious reserves, and the inevitable, destructive cuts in spending that must follow when the reserve runs out.

If Mezzano and a majority of those elected in April are sincere about change, they will surely strip Biondo of his position of Vice President… and the Radisavljevic/Biondo “legacy” would finally be over.

Other highlights

Board members discussed a plan to rent parts of the school buildings for $60 an hour. Concerns were expressed over building security and how $60 per hour would not cover the cost of required upgrades and security.

Radisavljevic seemed to be looking for a rubber stamp motion on this matter, but ultimately the dissension proved too great and they did not move forward, asking for more information before a decision is made.

The Norridge-Harwood Heights News ran a story about this portion of the meeting.

Recording of the October 16 2018 D-80 Board Meeting (full video – 51 minutes)


District 80 text messaging snafu falsely claims students absent

A text message sent out by the District to Giles parents today claims all children were absent, due to a “system mistake”

The text message read “your student has been marked absent” and to call Giles for confirmation.

However, parents attempting to call the school had trouble getting through due to known problems with the phone system.

At least one parent called the Norridge Police Department to verify the status of their children.

District 80 later sent another text message saying “the system made a mistake” and that “all students are safe in school”.

District 80’s phone system was supposed to have been replaced this year, but it was paused when the District 80 learned of a grant.

In the summer District officials falsely claimed the phone system at Giles was working properly.

Parents have also criticized the District’s poor communications during multiple school lockdowns.

 


District 79 runs big deficit, rejects consolidation

District 79 board not interested in talking about consolidation, as District runs large deficit this school year

District 79 was the one who initiated the current talk about consolidation, by inviting regional superintendent Mark Klaisner to one of their tax increase rallies in February.

Since then, there has been an increasing level of interest into consolidation by the members of the community, to combine the many grade school districts in the area, with the current focus being to consolidate the two-school District 80 and the single school District 79.

Klaisner will be hosting a consolidation forum this coming Tuesday at 6:30PM.

But now that the community has been talking more about it, all of a sudden District 79 wants nothing to do with consolidation.

And that’s right after Superintendent Kristin Kopta revealed District 79 would run a $371K deficit this school year.

At the September 12th board meeting, “consolidation information” was to have been provided, but was conveniently delayed by a technical malfunction.

Board President Michael Malusa and the board slammed the door to their involvement on consolidation, not willing to entertain a discussion “at this time”.

How does somebody running a $371,000 deficit not be interested in even entertaining a discussion about consolidation? This concept is lost on Malusa and his crew, the same people who put a $25 million dollar tax increase on the ballot earlier this year.

Further discussion ensued where the many years of diverting building funds to employee compensation (including 6% raises in each of the last three years of employment) have come home to roost as problems with water leakage continue to plague the building.

Consolidation of school districts may also involve closing one of the schools, and the District 79 board no doubt fears Pennoyer will be the one closed.

But if Pennoyer has been so poorly maintained, and as a result has the most structure related building issues of the school buildings in the area, isn’t it logical Pennoyer should be the one on the chopping block?

We the people do have the ability to petition for consolidation, so ultimately, it is not the board or administration who will decide whether the schools will consolidate.

Video of the September 12 2018 D-79 Board Meeting (before tour – 54 minutes)


District 80 to ask State for consolidation study grant

District 80 to request grant to partially fund consolidation feasibility study, as parents express concern over school safety issues

The district will be directing Superintendent Paul O’Malley to talk to the state about school district consolidation, which would allow a state grant to fund a portion of a required feasibility study.

Gus Rapatas, who made a request for O’Malley to do so, indicated he has secured the remaining funds for the study.

Rapatas is part of a community group formed to investigate consolidation options for Norridge schools.

This group has also reached out to District 79, who did not seem very receptive to the idea.

Safety issues questioned

Safety and security related concerns were brought up when a parent asked about the state of the phone system at Giles.

Board President Srbo Radisavljevic claimed that the phone system was working for both inbound and outbound calls, though inbound calls couldn’t be transferred to individual extensions.

However, some parents were suspicious of this statement. Later that evening after the meeting had ended, they insisted the phone system be tested while they were present.

They found that, far from being even partially working, it did not function at all.

District 80 officials making false or misleading statements isn’t exactly “news” to our community, but it doesn’t usually happen when the cameras are rolling and cannot unequivocally be denied.

The following day, Superintendent O’Malley circulated a letter that acknowledged the statement about the phone system working was “not accurate”.

At the meeting, the board also claimed fire alarm system was functional… but given their credibility, should we believe them?

The board heard a presentation from STR Partners for security related changes to Giles and Leigh schools.

The alterations would address the ability of unauthorized persons being able to gain access to the rest of the school, and would cost $41,000 in total, plus a 7 to 8 percent fee taken by STR Partners.

(STR Partners was one of pro-tax increase PAC Citizens for District 80’s campaign contributors.)

The discussion then shifted to paying for these improvements. Fiona Tanny of the Norridge Schools Foundation has been working on obtaining donations to help pay for security related changes to the schools.

Tanny reported issues obtaining donations if the money went to the school district, and not directly to the vendors for goods and services provided.

(It seems donors do not trust the District 80 Board of Education any more than parents or the taxpaying voters at large do.)

Board members discussed the issue of how the District would be on the hook for the money in the event the foundation’s donors didn’t provide the money.

Video of the August 21 2018 D-80 Board Meeting (before closed session – 1 hour 15 minutes)

 


Klaisner to hold new consolidation meeting September 18 at library

Klaisner reschedules consolidation meeting for September 18 at 6:30PM, but library restricts access to “registered” attendees only

Mark Klaisner, West 40 regional superintendent, will (tentatively?) attend a meeting discussing consolidation at the library September 18th.

We say “tentatively”, because this is a reschedule of a meeting that was supposed to take place in June, but was abandoned after interference from District 80’s leadership.

The date, September 18, also coincides with the same date as District 80’s September regular board meeting – not likely a coincidence.

The meeting requires “registration”, and until August 13th required a library card to register.

We understand that there is a need to manage limited capacity, but believe this should be an open meeting that anybody can attend without artificial restrictions.

We would hope a taxpayer wanting to attend would not be turned away because they did not register beforehand, as long as there was room.