Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave . . .

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" --Sir Walter Scott, Marmion

Click here to read an interesting series of emails that were obtained from Minooka CCSD 201 through a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  These emails pertain, of course, to the recent board meetings on October 15th and October 22nd and the controversy surrounding the proposed parent survey (see previous posts here, here and here; click here to see the proposed survey).  What jumps out at me from the emails, which are emails to and from Superintendent Al Gegenheimer, is the sheer duplicity of the messages (showing one face to the board and another to the administration and his confidants).

For example, in an email to one of the school board attorneys, Barb Erickson, in which he attaches the first draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer writes "If it was funny, it would be laughable."  However, the very next day (Friday, October 17) when forwarding the board of education a revised draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer has nothing more to say than "Attached you will find the survey.  Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision."  Barely a minute later, Mr. Gegenheimer forwards the same email to a Richard Dombrowski (who, to my knowledge, has no connection to Minooka CCSD 201) with this to say: "Here it is.  It would be laughable if it was funny."

A little later that same day, there was an email exchange with Mrs. Kathleen Cheshareck (Principal of Walnut Trails Elementary School) that went like this:

"Hi Al, Did Kristan [referring to board member Kristan Crouch] develop the survey or is it a published one?  thanks, Kathy" (Kathleen Cheshareck)

"Kristin [sic] did.  It is pitiful.  It would be laughable if it was funny." (Al Gegenheimer)

"Validity and reliability???" (Kathleen Cheshareck)

"None at all!  It's a joke (that isn't funny)." (Al Gegenheimer)


Two days later (Sunday, October 19), Mr. Al Skwarczynski (board member) sent an email to Mr. Gegenheimer which stated "I would like to see the last three open ended questions separated.  Since there is room on the page, each question needs to have space directly under it for a response."  In response to Mr. Skwarczynski's email, Mr. Gegenheimer merely stated "Thanks Al!"  The next day (Monday, October 20), I emailed Mr. Gegenheimer regarding the agenda for the meeting on October 22 stating "It seems that two items are missing from the meeting agenda: (1) the adoption of the strategic plan; and (2) approval of the parent survey."  The response from Mr. Gegenheimer was: "I will get it revised and posted.  Thanks!"  Again, at no point when he was emailing either of the two board members regarding the survey did Mr. Gegenheimer state or even imply that he had concerns about the survey or that he thought the survey was laughable, a joke, pitiful, or that it had absolutely no validity or reliability.

On the morning of October 22 (the day of the regular board meeting), Mr. Gegenheimer sent the proposed parent survey by email to Don McKinney (a former Minooka CCSD 201 board member who resigned from the school board earlier this year and is the current superintendent at Nettle Creek) with this to say: "Sorry that I didn't get this to you sooner.  Please look it over and let me know your thoughts.  Please call me today, if possible.  Thanks!"  Mr. McKinney's response stated: "I would agree that this survey is filled with bias.  On top of that, everything the board needs to know can already be found in the 5 Essentials Survey data.  This think [sic] is ridiculous."

At the very least, this is a rather interesting series of emails.  As I have stated in my previous blog posts, I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer was insubordinate and unprofessional in the manner in which he conducted himself regarding this entire incident.  For me, these emails just further that impression.  You can, of course, draw your own conclusions.

Superintendent Offered New Contract

At yesterday's meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board, the school board voted (by a 5-2 vote) to offer the current superintendent, Mr. Al Gegenheimer, a new four-year contract (click here for a copy of the proposed contract; see subsequent post for more information).  Those voting "yes" were Skwarczynski, Hannon, Budde, Carlson and Satorius.  Those voting "no" were Brozman and Martin.  The new contract, which purports to take Mr. Gegenheimer up to his retirement, includes a 6% raise for each of the four years of the contract.  This is after the school board voted at the January 2012 meeting to increase the superintendent's salary by 3% for the 2011-2012 school year, retroactive to July 1, 2011 (another 5-2 vote, with the same members voting "yes" and the same members voting "no").  The salaries over the four years of the new contract would be as follows (the superintendent's current salary for the 2011-2012 school year is approximately $136,269):

2012-2013:  $144,445
2013-2014:  $153,112 (approximate based on 6% raise)
2014-2015:  $162,298 (approximate based on 6% raise)
2015-2016:  $172,036 (approximate based on 6% raise)

A little quick math tells you that the final projected salary of $172,036 represents an increase of approximately 26% over the superintendent's current salary.  If you include the 3% retroactive raise from January of this year, the $172,036 represents an increase of approximately 30% over the superintendent's salary at the end of the last school year. 

In addition, the new contract provides for three annual post-retirement payments equal to 20% of the superintendent's final annual salary.  So, assuming a final salary of $172,036 as projected above, the three annual payments would be $34,407 each.  That is, the taxpayers of Minooka CCSD 201 will be paying the then former superintendent $34,407 each year for three years at the same time he is collecting a pension of up to 75% of the average of his highest four years of salary from the Teachers' Retirement System (approximately $118,480 based on these assumptions).  Keep in mind also that in addition to paying the then former superintendent, the taxpayers of Minooka CCSD 201 will be paying the salary of a new superintendent as well.

The contract also provides for the school district to provide the superintendent with health insurance (hospitalization/major medical) during his retirement until such time as he qualifies for Medicare (typically at 65) or becomes employed by another employer offering health insurance coverage.  This means that if the current superintendent retires at the end of this agreement, the school district would be obligated to provide him health insurance for approximately five years.  At the time that the proposed contract was voted on, it was unclear whether this provision was legal.  As a consequence, the motion that was voted on provided that the proposed contract be accepted pending further consultation with the school district's attorneys.  Since the proposed contract was presented to the school board for the first time at some time after 10 p.m. on the night of the meeting, it would have been difficult to consult the school district's attorneys before the vote was taken.

For those who like to put the pieces together and see the big picture, see my previous posts regarding financial projections, unsustainable spending, and underfunded pension systems.  The most difficult thing about being an elected official is that it is easy to spend other peoples' money (Margaret Thatcher had a famous saying about spending other peoples' money).  It is much more difficult to enforce discipline.  There is something akin to a moral hazard at work.  If you need proof, you can merely look to the budget deficits of the federal, state and local governments.