CUSD 200 can’t afford a new Jefferson Pre-school

Last year CUSD 200 produced a serrries of videos about the referendum.  This one discusses what happens if the referendum fails (which it did).

In it, Dr. Schuler says that if the referendum fails the model shows the board would need to set aside $6.5 million per year to maintain existing buildings.


At the Financial meeting on 1/31/2018 the staff presented a five year financial forecast

Wheaton 200 5Cast Presentation 1-31-18.pdf

On page 4 it says “Revenue by Source – Operating Funds Budget Total = $163,442,000” for FY 2018 Budget.  On page 10 “Expenditures by Object – Operating Funds Budget Total = $162,953,842.” Looks good, Revenues exceed expenditures.

But, one major omission – They did not include $6.5 million for anticipated capital expenditures that would be needed if the referendum failed.  It shows 1.94% (of $163 million) which is about $3 million for capital outlay. The predicted $6.5 million per year to maintain the buildings will result in a negative $3 million rather than surplus $0.5 million.

The district does NOT have the money to build a new Jefferson (financed by reserves and future revenues), maintain the other 19 schools and give the staff their anticipated annual raises without cutting any benefits and without raising taxes.  And yet, that is what district staff is recommending the board of education approve.

The next board meeting is Wed. Feb. 14, 2018.  Let’s see what the board decides.

School districts use “Lease-to-Own” as a huge – Illegal – Loophole to avoid Referendum

My goal is to make sure that CUSD 200 follows the LAW.

CUSD 200 has decided they can fund a new pre-K (after 2 failed referendums) with a lease-to-purchase agreement, without a referendum.   The school statute clearly contains language that allows the district to lease an existing building.  However, it also contains language that requires a referendum for any new building, with a possible exception.  Lease-to-own is not in that exception.  In the transcript when referendum exception passed in the House, the sponsor assured his fellow Reps that it could not be used to avoid referendums.  This gaping lease-to-own “loophole” has been used at least three times according to PMA in the last few years.  We fear that when school districts see others doing this, it will catch on like wildfire!

Wheaton-Warrenville, CUSD 200 plans to build a new Early learning Center (pre-k) at the existing site for $17.3 million without asking taxpayers and without raising taxes.  The new plan calls for the district to pay for a new Jefferson by dipping into reserves and borrowing money through so-called lease certificates for a term of up to 20 years.

This newly discovered loophole is inconsistent with the school code (105 ILCS 5/10-22.36) . The first paragraph says that all new building require a referendum.  The fourth paragraph lists exceptions.

Changes2 proposed to make law clear

The original law prior to 2001 stated that no referendum was required if the district used funds from the sale of other buildings or funds received as gifts or grants, provided that no funds were derived from the district’s bonded indebtedness or tax levy.  That was clear.  However, in 2001 the language was changed to add subsection (1) “while the building is being leased by the school district” as well as the clause “other than lease payments”.

The change was made by

  • Public Act 92-0127
  • Bill number: SB1035 of the 92 general assembly
  • Passed in the General Assembly May 01, 2001.
  • Approved July 20, 2001

We found the House transcript for the day that the school code in question was passed with the term “lease” added.

In the transcripts for the House on 5/1/2001,

on pages 49-52 Rep. Black asked

“…I want to make sure, Representative, that we’re not circumventing the right of the voters to say, ‘I don’t think that you ought to buy that building.'”

And Rep Crotty (bill sponsor) replied

“That is not in the Bill….When we’re talking about leasing, many school districts lease a building maybe for a dollar an hour just to be sure that that is not something that needs to be done with referendum.  So, we’re not changing that part.  And if there are added dollars needed for a school district, they most definitely have to still go through referendum.”

Those who passed it understood that it does NOT allow lease to own in order to avoid the referendum!


CUSD  200 school Board meeting on 1/17/2018

Watch key points of the video.

Jan Shaw comments (start at 17:47):

I questioned the legality of Lease Certificate and told them that they must cut something (starting with Dr. Schuler… admin… and teachers – end-of-career bonuses… & admin making their own pension contributions) then I will support a referendum for Jefferson.


PMA presentation for lease certificates…(starts at 1:57:00)

Note: about 2:01:30 Jim Matheisen (a banker & school board member) asked “are we unique to doing this in the state of Illinois?”  … “so it is pretty clear in the law that a lease can be entered into before the building is built?”

PMA Rep listed districts that used these – all in the last year or two.  (about 1:58:00)

  • Sunset Ridge
  • Huckster (?)
  • Airoway schools (?)

Not finding the last two (please, comment if you recognize the names)

He made this sound like to the district, this is as if building with bonds, except they cannot raise taxes, they must sign a lease agreement, and the funding organization sells “lease certificates” rather than “bonds.”  He said the bank is just a “conduit.”

Current schedule shows interest starts accruing Aug 2018, and payments around Aug 2019.

Jan Shaw spoke again at the end

We found one of the districts PMA mentioned.

Sunset Ridge

Located in the Village of Northfield approximately 20 miles north of downtown Chicago, District 29 consists of two schools. Middlefork School serves students in kindergarten through 3rd grade, while students in 4th through 8th grade attend Sunset Ridge School. District boundaries include a large portion of Northfield, as well as a small section of Northbrook.

500 children

Feeds New Trier High School

Letter: Sunset Ridge: Demolish Or Renovate? Oct 27,2015

We noted that this letter mentions Wight & Company – the firm CUSD 200 Board member Brad Paulsen works for.

PMA did the lease certificates for Sunset Ridge – the same firm CUDS 200 uses


From D29 board meeting minutes and notes…

Sunset Ridge apparent timeline

  • Fall 2015:  district newsletter = a “capital lease” option to finance =
  • Oct 2015: LTE Demolish Or Renovate
  • Oct 13,2015: board authorized lease certificate agreement
  • Nov 10,2015: Board discussed the wording of the contract agreement with Chapman & Cutler
  • Fall 2015:  $9.7 million lease certificates issued
  • Feb 9, 2016: PMA presentation
  • Feb 2016: issued $15.3 million of lease certificates
  • April 12, 2016: reported that they had a ground breaking ceremony
  • July- Aug 2017 old build demolished
  • August 2017: temporary occupancy certificate for the new building

Who was involved

  • Wight & Company, Brad Paulsen works for them – Paulsen also serves on CUSD 200 school board
  • PMA financial – sold the Lease Certificates (also CUSD 200)
  • Pepper Construction (another one I recognize from CUSD 200)
  • Chapman & Cutler, the law firm that would serve as bond counsel (also CUSD 200 past bond issues)

Sunset Ridge lease agreement

Via FOIA, we obtained a copy of the lease agreement.  It refers to 105 ILCS 5/10-22.12 (Lease of property for school purposes).  Nowhere in the agreement does it reference the portion of the school code that details acquisition of a new building (105 ILCS 5/10-22.36).

Item 10 on page 24-25 details the purchase of the building for 1 dollar after all payments of principle and interest have been made (scheduled for 20 years).

D29 Lease Agreement-2016 page 24_25

This Lease, and all  real estate interest  transferred hereunder, shall terminate upon the earlier of(a) the 7th day of December, 2114, (b) the date on which the construction of the Building is completed; provided that (i) all of the lease payments required of the District by this Lease have been fully paid or provided for and (II) Illinois law then provides that title to the Building may be lawfully transferred to the District without the holding of a referendum or the doing of any other act by the District, or (c) the earliest date on which the District is then authorized by Illinois law to take title  to the Building; Provided that all of the lease payments required of the District by this Lease have been fully paid for  If this Lease terminates pursuant to the provisions of (b) or (c) above, the District shall have the option to acquire title to the Building from Lessor upon payment of One and No/100 Dollars ($1.00).  Upon such payment by the District, title shall immediately transfer to and vest in the District.  The Lessor agrees to take any and all action necessary to cause such transfer of title to District to be effectuated.  If the Lease terminates pursuant to the provisions of (a) above, title to the Building shall not transfer to vest in the District. [emphasis added]

D29 Lease Agreement-2016 page 26

p26 item 18. Opinion of Counsel.  The District agrees to supply the Lessor the opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP, Chicago. Illinois, that there is statutory authority for the District to enter into this Lease, that the Lease and the Certificates have been duly authorized, Executed and delivered by the District, that the Lease and Certificates constitute valid and binding general obligations of the District in accordance with their terms payable from any funds… [emphasis added]

I have requested via FOIA a copy of “Chapman and Cutler LLP, Chicago. Illinois, that there is statutory authority for the District to enter into this Lease.”

School Code – what it says & does not say

While it is true that, the statutory language is clear that school districts can purchase a building that is being leased.  What we contend is not legal is what Sunset Ridge did and CUSD 200 is planning:

  • signing a lease for a building yet to be built to district specifications without referendum
  • Having the entire purchase price of the building paid in 20 years via the lease with the district taking title for $1.00 at the end of the lease period without referendum.
  • Having all money raised to pay for the construction via “lease Certificates” that look/act just like bonds to avoid a referendum. 

The only difference they claim is they cannot raise taxes to do it.  But, we all know money is fungible.  If they spend all reserves on a new building, they can borrow more via working cash bonds (without taxpayer approval) or cry poor and leverage the taxpayers for needs of other buildings.

If the interpreted of the existing law was to allow a lease-to-own for a building not yet even built, it would make the first section of 105 ILCS 5/10-22.36 moot & therefore that is not a correct interpretation.

From a friend who is an attorney:

As I read the statute, the lease exception would swallow the referendum requirement because any type of lease could be used to circumvent the referendum requirement as long as the district had funds on hand to pay the money. …

In reading the Chapman opinion, they write it very narrowly. They specifically do not opine as to the validity of doing the transaction without a referendum. They only opine as to the ability to enter into a lease, which is found in the school code; the ability to issue lease certificates, which is also clear; and the ability to pay the certificates.  They essentially assume authority for the underlying transaction.

Remember, Illinois is a Dillon’s rule state

That means the School boards only have the powers that are expressly granted in the school code.  Lease-to-own for school buildings is not granted and in fact conflicts with 105 ILCS 5/10-22.36.  All districts that have already done this, have broken the law. Not certain what to do about them especially if the new building is complete and the old one demolished.  We certainly should STOP any and all districts who are contemplating this.

Is the Haymarket Decision Final? Remember the ICWS

On Monday 2/5/2018, the Wheaton City council voted to not change the zoning law.  In so doing, Haymarket’s zoning request to allow them to open an in-patient & out-patient substance abuse center in the Danada are is being turned down.  That should end this request.  Residents still need to remain vigilant.

We have memories.   In 2014, after telling the Islamic Center Western Suburbs (ICWS) “NO” to their use of a house in unincorporated DuPage as a prayer center, the board suddenly changed their mind and voted yes to give ICWS the zoning change.  Hopefully, that will not happen this time in Wheaton.


As long as I’m thinking about it, here is how that vote went with a note of which of these people are up for election this year.



Voted “aye” – for the ICWS and against the laws and rules of the county

Chaplin District 2 still on Board running for re-election
Curran District 3 In July 2017 he was appointed to IL Senate running for election 41st IL Senate
DiCianni District 2 still on Board running for re-election
Eckhoff District 4 still on Board running for re-election
Fichtner District 1 still on Board term expires 2018
Healy District 5), still on Board term expires 2020
Michelassi District 5
Nowak District 6
Puchalski District 1 still on Board term expires 2020
Tornatore District 1 still on Board running for re-election


voted “nay”

Grasso District 3 still on Board running for state AG
Khouri District 5 still on Board running for IL state House
Krajewski District 3 still on Board term expires 2020
Larsen District 6
McBride District 4 RIP
Noonan District 2 still on Board term expires 2020
Zay District 6 still on Board running in 2018


Did not vote

Grant Disrtict 4 still on Board running for IL House D 42

Wheaton – Special use permit for HayMarket Denied

2/5/2018 Wheaton city council voted “NO” to zoning law changes requested by Haymarket.  which links to

  • 7:20 Haymarket discussion starts.
  • 13:10 rules for public comment – only taking comments for the text amendment (item on the table) and says not to repeat items already in the record. All speakers except attorneys will have 3 minutes.  Changed his mind will limit to 3 minutes rather than 5.  What is the city’s public comment policy?
  • 13:45 Haymarket proponents Mr. Bond
  • 15:20 Haymarket CEO
  • Then back to Mr. Bond goes until 28:19 (about 15 minutes)
  • 28:20 Public comments (Mayor interrupts to remind him of the rules and timing)
  • 2nd speaker DuPage already has 8 location serving the same type of clients (4 in hospitals, 4 near) & we know of outpatient areas not near hospitals.
  • 32:00 Mayor Gresk interrupts to stop anything he thinks is not on topic and to announce 1 minute left – is this stifling freedom of speech.
  • 54:45 Ron Almiron (candidate for County board, district 4)
  • 1:00:00 Comments by each city council member.

By 1:10:00 they voted to deny the text amendment, then went on to vote to deny the special use permit.


Thank you to all residents who participated in this process.

CUSD 200 fund balances

Since the district is planning on spending the money in reserves plus money each year for a new building, after two failed referendums, it occurs to me that we should know: HOW MUCH IS IN RESERVES?


From the 2017 referendum information, current bond payments (shown in grey shaded background) peek in 2022, drop significantly in 2023 and go to zero starting 2024.  Our property taxes should decrease in 2023 and 2024!

bond repayment now proposed 2017


Next, I looked at the total for end-of-month funds on hand and graphed the last  year and a half:


end of month2017We know the bulk of the school district revenue comes from property tax, which is due in two installments (June and September).   The low point for funds on hand is in May (possible exception when bonds are sold in the spring).

So I looked at what was the funds on hand at the end of May for the last few years.

May 31, 2014    $20,596,100
May 31, 2015    $10,616,841
May 31, 2016    $12,174,223
May 31, 2017    $6,340,890

We also know the district has not reduced other spending.  So, my fear is that they will spend money on hand for this new school, and then need to borrow to pay for other necessities,.


I believe they should agree to cut other spending first, so that the new building can be paid for using already existing funds along with all other necessities and come to the taxpayers with a third, affordable referendum.

Cutting spending should start with Dr. Schuler offering to reduce his benefits (they just signed a new contract with an end of contract bonus)


Then administrators giving up the end of year bonus and paying their own pension contribution.

And finally, teachers giving up the end of career bonus (They already pay their pension contribution).

If all that is done, the district can afford a new building and I’ll even help pass a no tax increase, new building referendum.


CUSD 200 Board meeting this wed – new pre-k without referendum

Wheaton-Warrenville CUSD200 plans to build a new Early learning Center (pre-k) at the existing Jefferson site for $17.3 million without asking taxpayers and without raising taxes.  The new plan calls for the district to pay for a new Jefferson by dipping into reserves and borrowing money through “lease certificates” for a term of up to 20 years.  Taxpayers have already said “NO” twice in the 2013 and 2017 referendums. See:


I have 2 questions

  1. Which time were they lying?
  2. Is this legal? If not, how can we stop it?

School Board Meeting

If you do not want to see the district putting us deeper in debt without our permission, please come to this week’s school board meeting and voice your opinion.

  • Wednesday 1/17/2018
  • 7:00 PM
  • at Wiesbrook Elementary School
  • 2160 Durfee Road, Wheaton, IL 60189

At the meeting they plan to approve the start of the Design Development Phase for the Early Childhood Center Project, and to discuss the lease funding certificates.  You can find the agenda by going to

  • clicking on Board-of-education -> meeting agendas (menu across the page, near the top, then drop down menu)
  • click on the 1/17 date in the calendar

Discussion item #1.  Overview of Lease Certificate Funding for Early Childhood Center explains the lease certificates.



Question of Truth:

Which time were they lying?

Last year (2017) when CUSD 200 had a referendum to sell $132 million in bonds to do $154 million in work: build a new pre-school and maintenance/improvements on other buildings – some of which could NOT WAIT!  Or now, when they claim they have the money for a new pre-school and nothing else is urgent?

They have not cut other spending nor has the district come into new money. (Since the 2017 referendum failed, they have given the superintendent and new & improved contract (more $). The top 50 administrators agreed to give up 1% planned raise in exchange for not giving up their end of career bonuses or paying their own employee pension contributions – like teachers do).

What happened to all those other NEEDS?

What happens if the state is late with its promised funds?


Question of legality:

We did some investigation.

This newly discovered loophole is in the school code (105 ILCS 5/10-22.36) (from Ch. 122, par. 10-22.36). The first paragraph implies that all new building require a referendum.  The fourth paragraph lists exceptions. (see below for current language)


The original law prior to 2001 stated that no referendum was required if the district used funds from the sale of other buildings or funds received as gifts, provided that no funds were derived from the district’s bonded indebtedness or tax levy.  That was clear enough.  However, in 2001 the language was changed to add subsection (1) “while the building is being leased by the school district” as well as the clause “other than lease payments”.

The change was made by

  • Public Act 92-0127
  • Bill number: SB1035 of the 92 general assembly
  • Passed in the General Assembly May 01, 2001.
  • Approved July 20, 2001

I could use legal help to see if the term “lease” was meant to apply only to existing buildings or was a carve out for the entire exception.



School Code covering new school buildings

The state statue can be found at  look for 5/10-22.36

 What it says:

(105 ILCS 5/10-22.36) (from Ch. 122, par. 10-22.36)
Sec. 10-22.36. Buildings for school purposes. To build or purchase a building for school classroom or instructional purposes upon the approval of a majority of the voters upon the proposition at a referendum held for such purpose or in accordance with Section 17-2.11, 19-3.5, or 19-3.10. The board may initiate such referendum by resolution. The board shall certify the resolution and proposition to the proper election authority for submission in accordance with the general election law.
The questions of building one or more new buildings for school purposes or office facilities, and issuing bonds for the purpose of borrowing money to purchase one or more buildings or sites for such buildings or office sites, to build one or more new buildings for school purposes or office facilities or to make additions and improvements to existing school buildings, may be combined into one or more propositions on the ballot.
Before erecting, or purchasing or remodeling such a building the board shall submit the plans and specifications respecting heating, ventilating, lighting, seating, water supply, toilets and safety against fire to the regional superintendent of schools having supervision and control over the district, for approval in accordance with Section 2-3.12.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, no referendum shall be required if the purchase, construction, or building of any such building (1) occurs while the building is being leased by the school district or (2) is paid with (A) funds derived from the sale or disposition of other buildings, land, or structures of the school district or (B) funds received (i) as a grant under the School Construction Law or (ii) as gifts or donations, provided that no funds to purchase, construct, or build such building, other than lease payments, are derived from the district’s bonded indebtedness or the tax levy of the district.
Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, no referendum shall be required if the purchase, construction, or building of any such building is paid with funds received from the County School Facility Occupation Tax Law under Section 5-1006.7 of the Counties Code or from the proceeds of bonds or other debt obligations secured by revenues obtained from that Law.


Cancelled trip to “Feed My Starving Children”

At the end of the December 13, 2017 CUSD 200 school board meeting a mother spoke on behalf of Pleasant Hill third grade parents, who were upset due to the cancellation of a Field trip. A field trip that had been approved (including PTA funded bus transportation) and permission slips sent home… Apparently, it was cancelled because an overly cautious administrator had found out that the “Feed My Starving Children” is a faith based operation.  Never mind that many public schools have gone there, and that the establishment clause of “separation of Church and state” only requires neutrality, not total avoidance of religion.  There was no legitimate reason given for cancelling the trip.

They made her wait until the end of a 2-hour meeting to make her 3-minute comment.  Watch the video starting at the 1 hour, 58 min, 48 seconds mark:

Also check out Mary Ann’s letter to the board  in which Mary Ann reminds Dr. Schuler and the board that he and other staff have been attending an annual “Prayer Breakfast” at district’s expense.

As far as I know, the field trip has not been re-approved.



Letter to CUSD 200 board

The day after the school board approved a new and improved four year contract extension for CUSD 200 Superintendent, Dr. Schuler, Mary Ann wrote a letter to the school board members.  Note: she references data from FOIAs (freedom of Information Act) I have yet to write them up.  Anyone interested in helping reach out to me.

Ms. Vitone;s letter:

To: Board Member <>; Jeff Schuler <>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 12:14 PM
Subject: Questions and concerns
To the CUSD 200 School Board members,
As a taxpaying citizen, very engaged parent and someone who believes in ethics and accountability, I am sending you this email with some observations and would like to challenge you to do the right thing.
I have read the FOIA emails between yourselves and the district.  It is very evident that you have questions about the agenda and you ask your questions and receive an answer from Dr. Schuler (who by the way is going to give you an answer you want to hear, I highly doubt you actually ask for some back up information to the response you receive) and then you keep that information to yourselves.  You say that you are transparent, so I am going to ask you to put your words into an action item and start posting on the website agenda, the Tuesday before the meeting, all of the questions that were asked and the answers that you received.  If you have questions, imagine how the public is left out of the conversation when everything is done behind closed doors.
It is very disappointing to see all of the meals that are being picked up by the taxpayers.  You made a commitment to serve on a board without compensation.  Meals, free tickets, parking passes  and gifts, etc. are all considered compensation and you should not be taking them.  You keep asking us for money, and Ms. Crabtree suggests parents should pay more in fees for a public education which should be covered in full by our tax dollars and she and the rest of you think you are entitled to and should have the taxpayers pay for a meal for you and the highly compensated Superintendent???  The optics don’t look good and your words and actions contradict each other again.  I would ask that you ask Dr. Schuler to credit all of those meals back to the taxpayers and if  he wants to treat all of you, to get in your good graces, he can take it out of his own pocket.  There is no reason these meetings cannot take place in his office or a conference room at the district building without food.
It is very disappointing to see that Ms. Crabtree’s daughter is working for CUSD 200 as a before and after day care employee.  It is a conflict of interest . You are supposed to be holding them accountable, not being their friend and enriching your family with your position as a public servant.  I know for a fact that there are plenty of part time jobs for our children to have while they are going to school and trying to earn some extra income.  Maybe Ms. Crabtree’s daughter could get a job at a Jimmy Johns, Panera Bread, or the many businesses in the area.  I know this for a fact because my son worked at a few of the places mentioned and many of these establishments are always looking for help.  People of this community had many issues with Ken Knicker and the nepotism when he was on the board and board members should not do anything to give the appearance of impropriety.
I understand from the meeting last night, that Dr. Schuler would not allow a field trip to Feed the Starving Children, because there was some religious pictures or something to that affect and and one person might be offended???  Newsflash for you, Wheaton is a Christian community, as is the majority of the United States of America.  If that is the case, he and the rest of the employees of District 200 should be working on Christmas and not take any break.  I would also call Dr. Schuler out on his double standard.  He and several employees of CUSD 200 have been charging taxpayers, for the last several years, to attend a Prayer Breakfast.  Does Dr. Schuler think he just gets to pick and choose when employees of the District can attend a religious event, yet deny our students the opportunity to do some good because someone might get offended.????  I would ask that Dr. Schuler and any employee of District 200 that had taxpayers pay for their breakfast, reimburse the taxpayers for this expense and he should rethink the decision he made.  How hypocritical and disappointing.
It is evident from your email correspondence back and forth that too much time is spent on patting each other on the backs, praising each other and planning social events than doing your jobs as public servants and getting our finances in order and overseeing the staff and curriculum.  It is obvious that you want to pass another referendum, which is why Ms. Crabtree makes mention in one of her emails that you need to engage the community, because you want more money from the taxpayers.
I understand that Ms. Ericksen, questioned a very involved citizen last night, as to his commenting on something he does not have all of the facts on??  Well Ms. Ericksen, do your job as a public official and start sharing your information with the public like you are supposed to be doing, and we would be as informed as you claim to be.  I guess after this comment that citizens will have to put in more FOIA’s so that we can get all of the facts before we comment.  I would expect that the District not complain about the FOIA’s since a board member is basically encouraging it.
I would once again challenge you to walk the talk and start making some changes to how you are voting, because you have no credibility to ask us for more money.  It was not a wise decision to vote the way you did on Dr. Schuler’s contract.  Again you are telling us you need more money, but you are lavishing an employee with our hard earned money.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Mary Ann Vitone

CUSD 200 lavished Dr. Schuler with more

There was one dissenting vote at the Dec. 13, 2016 CUSD 200 board meeting when the trustees voted to give Dr. Schuler a four year contract extension with new / changed  benefits.

I regret not noticing this prior to the meeting.  However, The contract approval was already a done deal by the time it was placed on the meeting agenda.  Once the podcast becomes available, I will post more information.  And if we receive information pertaining to the cost of this deal we will of course publish that.

The lone “NO” vote was from Jim Gambaiani.

Gambaiani’s prepared remarks:

Dr. Schuler:  During your time as superintendent you have done a solid job providing direction and leadership for the District. My prepared comments tonight regarding this resolution are specifically related to certain elements within the proposed contract, not your performance. 

In July a new Admin contract  took effect. As a part of the new contract, the Board voted to freeze salaries. With Admin salaries in excess of $5.0M per year this decision had a positive financial impact on the budget and made funds available for other needs within the District. I want to publically thank the Admin staff for embracing the salary freeze.

I believe a salary freeze should be part of the superintendent contract along with eliminating automatic annual salary increases. There are many elements within the contract that I do support, but these 2 items are show stoppers.

There are many financial challenges facing the District. As a Board, we should capitalize on any opportunity that will secure additional funding for District needs like a new Early Learning Center, building maintenance, capital improvements, and Sherman Durgus. Additionally, the District may face other financial challenges in the future such as a property tax freeze, a pension shift to the district level, and changes to the school funding formula.

 Because of these financial challenges, I will not support the resolution to extend the superintendent contract as written.

What has changed:

Dr. Schuler’s (current) 2018 base salary is $238,586.00 which is the same as he earned in 2017.

  • According to the 8/29/2016 compensation report, his 2016 base salary was $232,087.50
  • And the 9/5/2017 compensation report lists his 2017 base salary as $238,586.00 (that was a 2.8% increase on July 1, 2016 and no increase on July 1, 2017.

He is guaranteed that his salary will increase to keep pace with inflation (with CPI).  Thus he has ensured that the one year pay freeze he accepted in August 2017 will be only for one year.

He will receive an annual bonus up to 2% based on his performance review.

He receives 25 vacation days per year on top of the 12 holidays and sick days.  Vacation days can no longer be carried to a future year, but can be cashed in for extra pay.

He will receive a bonus at the end of this extension: $10,000.00 if the contract is extended again, or $5,250.00 if not.

He has made one concession:

Starting July 2017 (2018 school year), he will be paying 20% of the “Health Benefits Program” – just like teachers do.

His annual sick day allowance will be “in accordance with the minimum number of days required under the Illinois School Code.”  Currently that is 10 days per year ( 105 ILCS 5/24-6)


Jan Shaw’s previous recommendations

In public comments and a previous post I made the following recommendations.  They implemented point #1 and #3 for Dr. Schuler.

  1. The Board must know what is in the contract that they are approving – a sample admin contract should be attached to the meeting agenda.
  2. ALL post career compensation must go!
  3. Extra sick days for pension padding must go!
  4. Administrators must pay their own pension contributions, just like teachers do – and no, we cannot give them large raises so that they see no loss in net pay.  This is a perk they never should have had.

Associated previous posts


District should register as PAC for referendum

Something to keep in mind for the next referendum, I’m reading “Illinois Laws Affecting the School Finance Referendum“ found at:

During the 2017 referendum, CUSD 200 should have registered as a political committee.

On page 3 under “PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS” heading it states

A state appellate court in 2009 went even further in regulating the use of public funds in election communications.3 The court held that any communication that “refers to a clearly identified question of public policy that will appear on the ballot” must be treated as an electioneering communication. And if a school board expends more than $3,000 in any 12-month period for such communication, the board must register as a local political committee and abide by requirements of Article 9 of the Election Code. [emphasis added]

The court did not appear to make any exception for a board communication that calls attention to a specific election question in a neutral manner.

Where a school district would expect to spend more than $3,000 for lawful communications alerting voters to a public policy election, a board might be well advised to delegate even such impartial of communication to a citizens committee. Even a board that is willing to register as a political committee would be faced with tracking costs associated with printing and mailing, including staff time…

Looking at a post from Feb. 2017 CUSD 200 PR spending we see for the last referendum the district spent $11,772 on printing and mailing 40,000 “Investing in Our Future” referendum Brochures.

pr_2017 ref mailer

This clearly exceeds the $3,000 threshold.  CUSD 200 should have registered as a political committee for the 2017 referendum.

We also noted in “CUSD 200 video – $180 is misleading” that Superintendent Jeff Schuler stared in pro-referendum videos, filmed on district property and paid for with district funds after the referendum was placed on the ballot.   Clearly this violates the cautions in the same section of the IASB document.

Like members of the board, school district employees enjoy the common rights of citizenship on their own time. They, too, can perform referendum work so long as they are not on compensated time or using district equipment or supplies. School employees should not engage in activities designed to support the referendum during their work day (or during “compensated time”). The Ethics Act specifically defines participation in a political event or support of a candidate or referendum as a “prohibited political event” during the “compensated time” for a governmental employee. Determining when the superintendent or other administrator is on “compensated time” will be problematic, as will distinguishing between support for a referendum and simply compiling and communicating facts regarding the referendum.