Dist. 181 adopts ‘green line’ levy

By Seth Ufheil

Staff writer.

Published: 11/16/05
In a 4-3 vote taken after almost two hours of emotionally charged public comment and debate Nov. 14, the Community Consolidated District 181 School Board approved a $38.6 million tax levy request for fiscal 2005 that will stop the phase-in of the district’s 2002 education fund referendum issue and return a $5 million surplus to taxpayers.

The decision defied the recommendation of Pat Siegel, the district’s assistant superintendent for business, who advocated ending the phase-in approach but keeping the $5 million surplus until the levy is finalized in March. Siegel said that move would yield the appropriate amount to be returned to property owners without running a risk of cutting staff and programs.

Siegel projected deficit spending next year, and said the district would be broke by 2011 without a change in spending under the levy plan approved this week.

The four board members whose votes held sway said they could find no ethical justification for the district to keep tax money the board had not asked for in the 2002 referendum question, in which voters approved a levy increase of 31 cents per $100 of equalized assessed valuation — dubbed the “green line” by a group of district residents who demanded the surplus be returned.

“We never asked for those dollars in a formal way,” School Board member Kevin Hanrahan said, referring to the $5 million surplus collected in fiscal 2004. “Without that mandate, we have no right to those dollars.”

“I can’t separate that the phase-in was wrong, and we don’t want to give the money back,” School Board member Lisa Armonda said before the vote was taken.

Armonda, along with board members Catherine “Kitty” Delany and Mary Beth Tamm, voted with Hanrahan to pass the levy request. School Board President Louise Hillegass, Board Vice President Bill Moucka and board member Dan Rizzardini voted against the measure.

Hillegass said she was offended at the implication that the board had done something wrong by using the phase-in method, calling it a “common practice” among school districts. The board had an obligation to “maintain the financial and programmatic stability of the district,” she said.

“You were all elected and given a mandate to use your discretion,” Hillegass told board members.

“We need to have a discussion on what we need to be doing in this district,” she said, urging board members before voting to take more time to study the effects each levy request model would have on the quality of the education offered by the district.

“I want us to be quite sure of the direction we want to go,” she said.

Rizzardini proposed the board stop the phase-in but set aside until March the issue of determining how much of the levy to abate by studying the issue with the help of community members.

“We need to open our books and ask the community what we should do,” Rizzardini said. “I want more time to hear from more of the people I represent.”

Moucka also sought middle ground, proposing that the board should stop the phase-in and return $1.2 million of the surplus that was generated by moving money between district funds, while revisiting the levy question next year after a yearlong study.

Hanrahan said he “tried to come to agreement on the (proposal to) delay” and study the appropriate amount to return to taxpayers, but said he thought “agreeing to a rate higher than 31 cents validates past action,” which he said has cost the district trust and respect of residents.

“The operating budget needs this money,” he said, “and the public would support these programs. But we have no mandate.”

Armonda agreed.

“No matter how many people get involved in a study, my ethics aren’t going to change,” she said.

District Superintendent Mary Curley said administrators urged board members to stop the phase-in and form a committee to determine the amount of money the district would need to keep to avoid making cuts to items she listed as part of a presentation by Siegel to board members.

Included in the list for consideration were reduced funds for teachers and aides, as well as school programs such as reading specialists, special education and the gifted program.

“The cuts will be significant and will touch every child,” Curley warned board members before they voted.

District residents who aligned themselves with the “Go to Green Line” movement said the integrity of the board had been restored with the decision and encouraged board members to continue to speak with residents in response to the financial challenges the district now faces.

“This is the first step,” said Keith Peterson, a parent from Clarendon Hills. “Don’t discount the community — we’ll come up with those funds. We’re willing to work with you.”

http://www.libertysuburban.com/story.php?pub=10&sid=27637

Ethics drive board to cut taxes, risk losses

BY LESLIE O’NEIL
STAFF WRITER
Fighting back tears, school board president Louise Hillegass urged the board to weigh all options before taking the final 4-3 vote that could result in cutting district programs.

Community Consolidated Elementary District 181 Monday discussed for nearly 3 1/2 hours the benefits and disadvantages of slashing the tax rate from the equivalent of 60 cents to 31 cents. Because of a temporarily lifted tax cap, a reallocation of funds and the use of a phase-in method to increase tax rates, the district has received more than twice what was requested in a 2002 referendum. A group of citizens caught the error.

“I do not believe we have acted unethically,” Hillegass said, adding she believes the board never intended to overtax residents.

But with schools’ programs on the line, she said the board faces another ethical problem — whether to risk educational quality to appease overtaxed residents.

“I want to be quite sure we’re doing the right thing for the district,” she said. “There’s a lot of gray out there. I want to be careful about not oversimplifying this issue.”

Along with Hillegass, Superintendent Mary Curley recommended postponing cutting the rate until a committee of citizens could be formed and more residents’ views could be heard. Business manager Pat Seigel warned that returning to the 31-cent rate and abating the $5 million would likely result in the district needing to pass another referendum by 2008.

“Think seriously about not giving back the $5 million tonight,” Curley told the board. “It’s not imperative that we make that decision tonight. Nobody’s paying for the time, and you can still end up in the same place.”

During public comment, residents voiced concerns that they were being stolen from, even having their “wallets lifted” by the board. One resident presented a visual, the “district mascot” — an oinking piggy bank that grunts “more money, more money.”

Still others, some calling themselves the quiet majority, said they would rather be overtaxed than see children lose programs and homes lose property value.

“I’m concerned that the opinions of a few are being interpreted as the feelings of the majority,” one resident said. “They call themselves anti-tax, but I think they’re anti-education.”

Despite pleas from Hillegass, Curley and other board members, taking additional time to sort out the issue wouldn’t have changed four board members’ minds.

“The bottom line is at the end of this, it’s my ethics. If I think it’s wrong now, I’m still going to think it’s wrong in March,” board member Lisa Armonda said about the board keeping any additional money. “I can’t come up with any other scenario than this. I’m sorry.”

Armonda, along with Kitty Delaney, Mary Beth Tamm and Kevin Hanrahan, approved returning to the 31-cent increase and abating the additional $5 million. Hillegass, Bill Mouka and Daniel Rizzardini opposed the motion.

Before the 4-3 vote, Curley warned the decision could result in lost programs.

She presented a list of more than 20 items that could be reduced or slashed.

“To even mention a lot of these cuts is difficult,” Curley said as she unveiled the option of consolidating special education classes and reducing special education staff.

Despite the possible cuts, Hanrahan said he would vote for what he thinks is right.

“I have to set an example for my children about what’s right and what’s wrong,” he said. “I can’t justify using money without a formal public mandate.”

During closing public comment, residents expressed gratitude for the board members’ efforts.

“I don’t know how I would have voted,” one resident said. “Every one of you made an ethical vote. I’m personally very proud to have every one of you as a board member.”