Was anybody at the last school Board meeting? The Board apparently adopted a resolution authorizing the tentative tax levy for the 2009 tax year in the amount of $23,558,499.
The adopted budget for the current school year carries just over $18 million in expenses. What am I missing?
There will be a required Truth in Taxation Hearing on December 15th at 7:30 p.m. in the Hauser Junior High School Learning Resource Center.
Is this another game of smoke and mirrors or are Nancy Jensen, Giles McCarthy, Hareena Wakely, James Schraidt,Mary Stimming,Jennifer Leimberer, and Mary Ellen Meindl so out of touch with reality that they don't understand that we are in a severe recession bordering on a depression? The unemployment rate is upwards of 17%, people are losing their jobs and homes very rapidly and they want to raise our taxes again?
What are they on?
We need to REDUCE our spending, not increase it.
Is it a done deal? Can we do anything about it? What is a Truth in Taxation Hearing?
Tom Jacobs, thanks for alerting us to this insanity.
I was missing a whole bunch of stuff, namely:
- The Truth in Taxation law requires a taxing district to compare the amount of its proposed AGGREGATE PROPERTY TAX LEVY, to the amount of TAXES EXTENDED for the district in the prior year. A notice must be published in a newspaper and a public hearing must be held, if the proposed aggregate tax levy is more than 5% greater then the previous year’s tax extension.
- AGGREGATE LEVY: means the annual corporate property tax levy plus the special purpose
levies that are made annually. Examples of special purpose tax levies include taxes for
pension plans, social security, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, liability insurance, police protection, fire protection, etc.
- TAX EXTENSION: is the amount of taxes billed to property taxpayers of the taxing district in the previous year.
And finally, from 2008 D96 Board Meeting Minutes:
"The total amount of the proposed levy requested for 2008 is $23,981,512 and represents an increase of 17.15%. However, the actual levy increase realized by the District will be capped at 4.2% as determined by the Property Tax Extension Law."
Presumably, the Board is going to do the same this year, i.e. increase the ACTUAL LEVY by the 4.2%. I'll try to confirm.
Black Friday festivities is making my head spin. What does what you just wrote mean? That the school board is increasing our taxes again by 4.2%, even though they are already operating with a surplus? And "only" increasing it by 4.2%, so that it can fly under the radar?
http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=5580&TM=49131.99
Riverside School District 96 board members expressed outrage last week over the likely decision of the Riverside village board to stop paying for school crossing guards at the end of the current school year.
"It's a public safety issue," said District 96 finance committee Chairman James Schraidt. "If government isn't there to protect public safety, especially for the most vulnerable, then what is it there for? I just think this is just a ridiculous way to cut the Riverside budget. I think it is deplorable."
Well I think this fool is rediculous. D96 has about a $12 mil surplus (and growing) and they can't step up to pay for the crossing guards because they are "in the education business and not in the safety business.?" People should really get angry and grab them by the ears and drag the whole bunch of them out. With that kind of surplus - and more building - all they would have to do is to agree to pay the bill for the next few years and simply send a check to the Village which could keep administering the program just as it does now. Here's a chance for the school board to help all the residents out - you know - the people that pay the taxes for the operation of those schools. What is wrong with these people?
What spatny quoted is from the Landmark. If you read the online version, you could read the comments which ask the same thing. what IS wrong with these people. they are so out of touch with reality and what they are charged to do--make that what WE ELECTED them to do--that they simply cannot do it? I like your idea, spatny, to "really get angry and grab them by the ears and drag the whole bunch of them out." Let's not forget that they are the very same people who gave Lamberson the sweet salary increase of to $313,000. Why? Because he is a nice guy?
Nancy Jensen, Giles McCarthy, Hareena Wakely, James Schraidt, Mary Stimming,Jennifer Leimberer, and Mary Ellen Meindl. Please make a note of it.
Recommended listening from the NEA
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-1122edit1nov22,0,2514797.story
Recommended reading from the Chicago Tribune:
'Too high a price'
November 22, 2009
We watched an interesting YouTube video the other day. It was brought to our attention by state Sen. James Meeks, the Chicago Democrat who is also pastor of Salem Baptist Church on the South Side. We think our readers should check out the video. It'll open your eyes.
Meeks, who chairs the Illinois Senate Education Committee, has been in a war with the Chicago Teachers Union since he had some tough things to say about public education in a Tribune essay and in a speech at Rainbow Push.
The CTU responded with a vow not to give him another dime in campaign money until he apologized. Meeks promptly wrote a check for $4,000, giving back every dime the union had already given him.
No apology.
You have to love this guy. He's genuinely looking out for kids and doesn't back down to pressure.
Back to the video. It shows the top lawyer of the National Education Association, Bob Chanin, speaking at the NEA's annual meeting in July. Chanin was retiring. This was his swan song.
Chanin makes unmistakably clear what the highest priority is for the union. Hint: It's not the education of your kids.
Chanin closed his nearly 25-minute speech by explaining the influence of the NEA:
Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.
And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.
Oh, it gets more interesting.
This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.
Too high a price to pay for educated children. Chanin got wild applause from thousands of NEA members at the San Diego Convention Centerfor his remarks.
We tried for several days to get NEA officials to explain those remarks. We wanted to ask if the rest of the union leadership believed that kids ranked behind collective bargaining on the teacher priority list. We're still waiting to hear from them.
We know the answer the Chicago Teachers Union gave the Rev. Meeks: Cross us and we'll choke off your money.
Meeks plans to introduce a bill in January that would give the kids at Chicago's lowest-performing schools a choice. It would give kids at 15 high schools and 48 elementary schools a voucher to pay for another school.
He plans to push to remove the cap on the number of charter schools in Illinois. The legislature raised the cap this year. But there should be no cap at all.
Meeks met on Thursday with Sen. Dan Cronin, the Republican leader on the Education Committee, to see if they can work out a bipartisan agenda.
Good for both of them.
The teachers unions in Illinois get angry when we write about them. They argue that they're pushing a reform agenda, too.
If that's the case, they shouldn't be asking Meeks for an apology. They should be asking for an apology from everyone who cheered Chanin.
Too high a price, eh?
You must log in to post.