Wanted: Malleable School Board Member to Fill Recent Vacancy
- on 07.21.07
- D-127
- 3 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
The letter to the editor below is how one Naperville District 203 resident believes the requirements are for a person to fill their vacant seat.
|
Fiscal watchdogs need not apply Wanted: malleable school board member to fill recent vacancy. With an operating budget exceeding $200 million and declining student enrollment, District 203 is now taking applications from people interested in filling a recent board member vacancy. Applicants must be at least 18 years old and registered voters. Looking for team players willing and able to succumb to the peer pressures of Groupthink. Seeking candidates with a core ideology that believes teachers are underpaid, and academic excellence is directly correlated to spending. Applicant must be able to crumble under the pressure of 11th-hour contract negotiations. Treating the taxpayer like an ATM, and revisionist history skills, a plus. Applicants with a business degree or financial expertise need not apply. Mike Davitt |
In todays Daily Herald we find out there is an opening on the District 127 school board. Russ Hagar, Board President, resigned Thursday night. Glen Eriksson will be taking over as board President. I have emailed Superintendent Finger and Mr. Eriksson asking for more details on the replacement process and time frames. I will post that information when I receive it.
From my knowledge and dealing with the school board here in District 127, Mr. Davitt’s job description fits here as well. I hope that will not be the case, but when you have a district who overtaxes its residents, exceeds debt limit and spends extravagantly on synthetic turf, it makes it hard to imagine otherwise.
Mike Davitt is not just “a naperville resident” – he is a former school board member who lost in his re-election bid this past April. To be fair, Mike was a voice of fiscal restraint, which certainly has its place. However, in this last election he attempted to stage a “coup” of sorts by recruiting 2 other right-wing guys and then the 3 of them ran a a “ticket”. Together with an allied Board member (the one who now quit), they would have a majority and be able to force through draconian cuts ( Even though in 4 years he was unable to identify even $1 of tax dollars wasted). It is no suprise that while the folks of Naperville like having *A* voice of fiscal restraint on the board (nobody wants their money wasted) – they also know that having GOOD schools is the number one priority, fiscal restraint always needs to be less important than having good quality. As such, Mike’s “Taxpayer’s Ticket” was soulndly defeated.
When Mike Davitt was soundly NOT re-elected, instead of considering it a rejection of his approach by the community, he basically accused the community of being stupid and misled by the press.
In other words, anything Mike Davitt has to say needs be taken with a giant boulder of salt.
As for synthetic turf, Do you think it is possible that FieldTurf has something that he others do not? Safety? A lower incidence of injury? FieldTurf is the leader in the industry – the “cadillac” of turf. $150,000 could be spent on just one injury, and would be a tiny fraction of a lawsuit settlement, that would be based on the district causing injuries by buying “substandard” turf. There is an old asying – “Quality doesn’t cost, it pays”.
Reading through your other articles, it appears you are under the misconception that budgets can be cut without “punishing” children. I have to assume you want to “punish” teachers instead? Do you think that teachers will be happy with pay cuts? That you’ll get the best out of them? That you’ll be able to attract good teachers or keep them? Or will you be left with dead-enders finishing out their time until retirement, or bottom-of-the barrel teachers who couldn’t get hire in good districts (like Naperville!). Education is clearly
School Board members are unpaid – unless you think they are making decisions to line their own pockets (and I do not see any such accusation) – don’t you think they are just trying to do their best – to make the best decisions they can? They are taxpayers just like you, they certainly don’t want to waste money.
I have not reviewed board meeting notes so I do not know whether your claim about Mr. Davitt not finding any money being misspent is factual or not. I do know however, that he correctly pointed out how District 203 overtaxed its residents just like District 127 here has done.
Your comment, “fiscal restraint always needs to be less important than having good quality”, is rather arrogant. The implication here is that costs should not be considered and it is OK to take as much money from the taxpayers as the district and board think they need. This statement is a perfect example of why fiscally conservative taxpayers need to be on school boards. There is not an unlimited amount of money the district can take from the taxpayers. There have been several studies proving that money is not the answer to a quality education.
Teachers within the public schools system are not underpaid. They have current and retirement benefits that far exceed what the majority of taxpayers in the community will receive. If you have read my site you would also see that if the plan I advocate, funding every child equally, you will see that I believe this plan would actually raise teachers salaries. Until that day happens, I believe it is incumbent upon all taxing bodies, not just schools, to limit growth in salaries and expenditures to CPI each year.
I see you decided to only use the turf example and not the other examples I pointed out in D127. On the subject of the turf though, the local newspaper editor came to the same conclusion I did.
I would say most school board members do try to make good decisions. Unfortunately, most of these people are only given the information to lead them to the decision the administration wants. Others do only what is best for their child or neighborhood and not the entire school population. Those that ask hard questions and are fiscally responsible are often ridiculed and marginalized for no other reason than they question the status quo.
Attempts to apply common sense and fiscal restraint to education are now labeled “draconian?” Laughable. And I suppose teachers are underpaid too? The facts are clear. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION BETWEEN SPENDING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT. None, nada, zilch. Naperville 203 has been producing the same high quality students for decades because every study comes to the same conclusion: PARENTS are the #1 predictors of student success. While spending has doubled over the last 10 years to over $200 million, student enrollment was flat (now declining), ACT scores flat, ISAT scores flat, property taxes doubled, no major facilities improvement, no major new education programs, but teacher salaries have risen at a rate 2-3 times inflation. The educational product today is no better than the product being produced $100 million ago. That should concern parents and taxpayers alike. The teachers’ union is fleecing Naperville. They threatened to strike with a already ridiculous three-year 15% offer on the table. That’s what the teachers’ union is really all about. If we ever get a school board with the backbone to stand firm on reasonable salary increases, it would actually leave money for programs and facilities. But no. Instead we’ve doubled spending in 10 years, and now job #1 for our union-endorsed board is to craft another dishonest referendum to sell to the voters in 2008. Oh, I forgot, “it’s for the kids.”