Daily Herald: Board Rejects Earlier Pledge

The Daily Herald has now written a story about the D46 school board reversing course and keeping money they received unethically.

Here are some excerpts with my comments and corrections:


          

Grayslake Elementary District 46 board members are going back on their pledge to refund extra money collected after voters approved a tax increase in 1999.

The board voted Jan. 10 to reject the rebate, an about-face from an October vote on the issue. The second vote was needed, officials said, because the board did not follow proper procedure in October.

As a result, the district will keep the $6.9 million it collected over the state-imposed debt limit as part of the $23.2 million referendum that funded construction of Prairieview and Frederick schools.

An abatement or defeasement is not an actual rebate. Each would just lower the tax rate. The district would not be sending taxpayers a check.

The procedure mentioned was really the fact that the abatement had to be in the form of a resolution rather than a motion. As I stated before this is another example of laws put in place to thwart the will of the public by slowing down the process and buying more time for the school bureaucracy to find a way to reverse the decision as happened in this case.


          

A Daily Herald investigation in April 2005 found District 46 was one of 66 suburban school districts to use bond loopholes to collect more money than allowed.

For those of you who continue to claim the board did everything right, the Daily Herald does not agree with you. They too, understand that district taking more taxpayer money than is allowed.


          

Surroz, who voted in favor of the original rebate in October, opposed it in the second vote.

“We could use the interest on the money to restore programs we have lost,” he said. “And, the extra money will keep us from going out for referendum.”

A friend of this blog stated when this comment was made, “Keith just ran an illegal referendum and is stealing taxpayer money.”

I have to agree given the fact that the intention of this statement is to have the district continue to move the interest earned from this money into the education fund. The district will now be spending artificial revenue that will go away in the next few years. They cannot keep this money indefinitely. My understanding is that without a need these bonds should never have been issued and cannot be kept for more than 3 or 4 more years without a project.


          

With such a small amount, Surroz said, it was smarter to allow District 46 to keep the money.

“I imagine some people will be upset about the decision,” he said. “But I’ve also had a lot of people tell me to keep it and do what is needed to be done to help the district.”

Keith and the other 3 board members who voted to keep this unethically gotten money are causing more harm to the district than good. They are telling the voters “don’t trust us with your money. We will take every chance we get to take more from you because we are entitled to do so.”

These board members wonder why it is so hard to pass a referendum. It is their own actions like this that continually cause voters to mistrust them. The taxpayers are not an open wallet. They are not a never ending money stream. Stop stealing form the taxpayers and control your spending. Then, over time you will build trust with the voters again so they know when you really need money.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis

2 Responses to “Daily Herald: Board Rejects Earlier Pledge”

  1. honestabe, on January 20th, 2007 at 9:08 am Said:

    Lennie’s title says it all. “Board chooses Money over Ethics”. What he is really saying is that the board finally made a decision that represents all of the students that attend D46 schools. Wow, what a concept. An elected board for the district made a decision that is best for the students of the district, not Lennie’s home schooled child. Now that is ethical. I guess Lennie’s title should have read Board chooses “Money over the Ethics that serve Lennie Best”. Don’t worry Lennie, you still are Rohrer and Copeek’s puppet master. Remember Lennie, the nation is founded on the concept of “We the People…”, not “Me the Lennie”.

  2. site admin, on January 21st, 2007 at 5:36 pm Said:

    We the people should mean all the people of the district. Many of those people have emailed and called the board members. That is the reason they voted to abate the bonds last October. The people were tired of the board using legal loopholes to take more money from the taxpayers than was approved.

    The majority of these elected members were elected by people not wanting a referendum and saying they had enough money. This board is not listening to the people.

    You stated, “An elected board for the district made a decision that is best for the students of the district”. By your logic, then you are claiming the board should use every legal loopholes to tax its residents at whatever level they can no matter what the voters want? That is what is wrong with our government and many individuals today. The ends do not justify unethical means.

« »