Riverside Info » About Riverside

D96 needs to put taxpayers first

(32 posts)
  • Started 2 years ago by TomJacobs
  • Latest reply from CuriousResident
  1. TomJacobs
    Member

    Last week's Landmark article titled "District 96 hot over crossing guard cuts" casts a revealing light on the mindset of D96 Board members and their interpretation of district's role as an isolated, crisply separated branch of government, detached from the broader concerns and challenges of the overall Riverside community.

    As reported, the village of Riverside has decided to no longer fund crossing guards for school children due to looming and large budget deficits. Another Riverside taxing body, District 96, is taking offense at this cut, labeling it "ridiculous" and "deplorable" and invoking the importance of public safety for "the most vulnerable." In terms of monetary magnitude, the cost of the crossing guards at stake is $63,000.

    At its most basic, the board members' outrage is an acknowledgement that the actions taken by one taxing district often do affect the other taxing districts in our municipality, and the overall community of Riverside itself.

    More specifically, the board's statements are hypocritical given that a significant number of their weighty decisions involving pensions affect taxpayers of a different taxing body entirely, namely the State of Illinois. Throwing stones when living in a crystal tower has always been a risky proposition.

    According to publicly available information as to the calculation of Illinois school administrator retirement benefits, the 20-percent retroactive pay raise alone granted to Superintendent Jonathan Lamberson earlier this year will cost Illinois taxpayers a premium of over $600,000 pension payout over the 27.9 year life expectancy when he retires in 2013 at age 58.

    This decision alone, to grant an arbitrary and excessive pay raise, has resulted in a $600,000 gift to one District 96 employee, to be covered by state taxpayers.

    Widely reported in the media as a fiscal train wreck of massive proportions, the excessive pension disbursements to retired public employees are the key contributor to the state's dismal financial health.

    The current year pension contribution for Lamberson, paid for by local property taxes, totals $28,626. In comparison, the total cumulative pension payout over Lamberson's expected 27.9 years of retirement will be in excess of $9.4 million, paid for primarily by state taxpayers.

    The statewide budget shortfall, in turn, has led Illinois legislators to cut a significant number of social services earlier this year. Talk about the needs of the most vulnerable.

    The root cause for the carefree spending habits that define the current school board lies in the voter approved D96 property tax referendum of 2004. Proposed to avoid impending education and instruction cuts, the referendum has created a surplus of over $15 million by the end of the current school year, and has led the board to lose sight over the value of our taxpayer money.

    Large-scale discretionary spending like excessive salary increases and the purchase of laptop computers for fifth-graders, an initiative adopted by the board without a documented cost-benefit analysis, poses a stark contrast to the village of Riverside board which, akin to a family in dire budgetary straights, is trying to figure out which of the essential services to cut.

    This District 96 board is remarkably far out of touch with the leadership role any elected body of officials ought to play within the larger Riverside community. So far, this board has failed to acknowledge the role of education within the community's broader purposes and other taxing bodies, and is choosing to act and speak with the proverbial blinders on.

    In fairness, however, it is also not clear what kind of leadership the village of Riverside has displayed once the idea of cutting the crossing guards came up. How much dialogue did the village board initiate, and was early notice given to the D96 Board?

    How to move forward? Recommendation No. 3 in an open letter sent to the D96 board in August and signed by over 190 local residents proposed that "the board shall proactively engage in coordination and planning meetings and activities held among the major taxing bodies, and initiate them in case such efforts do not exist."

    The crossing guard discussion exemplifies the need for this to occur. The three main local taxing districts, village of Riverside, D96, and D208, must all be held to this higher standard.

    There is consensus that crossing guards represent an issue of public safety that is to be met in the interest of the community. Elected officials, do your job, talk to each other, and lead. D96, the money is there: ours.

    Posted Tuesday Dec 1, 2009 23:18 #
  2. anonymous
    Member

    To your point, here is the link to the Chicago Tribune's editorial on the teachers union.

    It should be required reading, as we are in contract negotiations with them.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 2, 2009 00:09 #
  3. PAR4
    Member

    Even the Simpson's are getting into the act. Monday's episode had Bart writing on the chalkboard (during the opening for those that are familiar).....

    Teachers' unions are not ruining the country

    Of course, his topics are always timely and tongue in cheek....

    Posted Wednesday Dec 2, 2009 07:23 #
  4. anonymous
    Member

    This time, it's not so tongue in cheek. It's not just the teaches unions. It's SEIU, too, and the AAW, and the teamsters, and the.....fill in the blank. It's all the unions that have hampered selling products at a decent price point--which forced companies to go overseas for manufacture, and its all the government unions with their unsustainable pension plan.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 2, 2009 07:48 #
  5. spatny
    Member

    To disagree - it's often management that wants to move overseas so they can pump up the bottom line and do some stock deal. Take Wm. Simon and Florsheim, for instance, or GM sending Delco to Mexico. Without unions the whole wage scale sinks to the lowest level, which happens to be China or what is currently cheaper.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 2, 2009 11:52 #
  6. KimJ
    Member

    D96 may work with village on crossing guards
    Despite support for status quo, schools may help in short-term

    http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=5649

    Will someone please read this article and explain it to me.
    I have absolutely no idea what the resolution was for/against....

    A 5 to 2 vote (for what?)

    Wakely who voted against it is quoted saying
    "They're in some short-term problem and are in a situation where we have to help. Groups have to come together."

    Stimming voted for it and is quoted saying
    "that just because District 96 is in a much better financial shape than the village of Riverside that is no reason for the village to stop paying and managing the crossing guards."

    Maybe it has just been a long day.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 16:54 #
  7. ChrisHajer
    Member

    The article was very poorly written, I thought, and the comments from Hareena Wakely didn't seem to support her vote against. I'm guessing her comments were taken out of context. James Schraidt didn't make any comments that were quoted in the article.

    Seemed though like they resolved to help the village pay for a greater portion of the crossing guard expense.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 18:39 #
  8. KimJ
    Member

    http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/riverside/topstories/x1903566981/Crossing-guard-fund-uncertain

    Here is more from Sub Life.

    Still don't understand the D96 vote though.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 18:41 #
  9. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Wait, maybe not:

    "District 96 board voted 5-2 in favor of a resolution supporting the continuation of the current school crossing guard program in which the village of Riverside manages the crossing guards and pays most of their salaries."

    So the resolution approved continuing paying what they're already paying, but then the following paragraphs make it sound like some board members "also indicated a willingness to work with the village on a short-term basis to pick up more than the approximately 30-percent share of the costs of the crossing guards that District 96 already contributes"

    So, the resolution was to keep doing what the school district is doing now, but some board members are willing to pay more than the 30% we're currently paying on a short term basis?

    More confused now than before. Maybe someone who was at the board of ed meeting can comment further.

    Posted Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 18:42 #
  10. ChrisHajer
    Member

    Where is this address in Riverside?

    "Riverside Suburban Life | 1101 W. 31st St., Suite 100 Riverside, IL 60546"

    Posted Wednesday Dec 16, 2009 18:44 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.