April Newsletter

School Board Election April 5, 2011
On April 5, 2011, three
candidates will be elected
to four-year terms on the
seven member District 220 Board
of Education.
Five candidates are seeking the
three seats. Four of the five will
appear on the ballot by name:
Tom Antoine (construction manager
and real estate attorney),
Brian Battle (current Board
President, and the only incumbent
candidate), Richard
Burkhart (retired Oracle Corp.
executive) and Joseph Ruffolo
(Leyden Township District 212
Teacher). The fifth candidate,
Jim Mayer (commodities trader),
is running as a write-in candidate.
As a taxpayer in District 220 your
vote is important in determining
the future direction of the
District.
Barrington Enlightened Taxpayers
Association has closely followed
the decisions made by the Board
of Education over many years.
The past five years and the next
five years are of particular interest
regarding this next election.
Summary of the Issues
Again the District is in the midst
of a massive effort to identify cost
reductions, excluding the costs of
the collective bargaining agreement
with the teachers, because
there would otherwise be a
budget deficit for next year.
The long term Projection shows
increasingly larger budget deficits
for each year through 2016, the
last year in the Projection. As a
consequence, if the deficits are
not eliminated the current $42
million “fund balance” declines to
$17.6 million at the end of 2016,
well below the minimum level
called for in the Board’s Fund
Balance Policy. This Policy was
first adopted in 2004 to help
ensure a sound financial position
and a strong bond rating.
Costs continue to grow at a faster
rate than revenues. This is not a
sustainable economic model for
District 220. BETA believes that
the cost growth can not be managed
by limiting the cost reduction
efforts to costs other than
the teachers’ contract.
As described in detail later in this
letter, the current and the prior
teachers’ contracts are significant
drivers of the cost growth rate.
As you evaluate which candidates
you will vote for, ask each candidate
for their assessment of the
looming deficits and what they
would do as responsible members
of the Board of Education to
eliminate the deficits. Ask yourself
if you are satisfied with the
performance of the current Board
in this regard.
Current Situation
The Board of Education is in the
midst of preparing the Budget for
the next fiscal year. Based on the
most recent Projection, the Board
has announced that the costs in
the 2012 preliminary budget must
be reduced in order to have a balanced
budget. Because the salary
and related benefit costs for
teachers are covered by a collective
bargaining agreement, those
costs have not been part of the
cost reduction effort. Such costs
account for approximately 56% of
the annual total costs in the
Education Fund. The cost reduction
target is in the $2 million
range (less than 2% of total
projected costs for all District
Funds for 2012).
In order to achieve the targeted
cost reduction, a massive effort
to identify specific reductions has
been underway for months with a
March 15 deadline for finalization.
The timing of the deadline has to
do with the need to give timely
notice to staff of possible layoffs.
Time has been devoted at school
board meetings for public comment,
most of which has come
from district employees, parents
and students. Significant work
has been done by district staff in
identifying potential cuts and
implications.
(continued on page 2)
As you evaluate which candidates you will vote for, ask each candidate for their assessment
of the looming deficits and what they would do as responsible members of the
Board of Education to eliminate the deficits. Ask yourself if you are satisfied with the
performance of the current Board in this regard.
Barrington Enlightened Taxpayers Association (BETA)
P.O. Box 1522
Barrington, IL 60011
Presort STD
US Postage
PAID
Barrington, IL 60011
Permit No. 87
The Projection shows increasingly
larger budget deficits for each
year through 2016, the last year
in the Projection. As a consequence,
the current $42 million
“fund balance” declines to $26.5
million at the end of 2015 and
$17.6 million at the end of 2016.
In each case, the balance is below
the range set by the Board in the
Fund Balance Policy first adopted
in 2004. The Policy specifies a
Fund Balance of not less than
25% of annual revenue and not
more than 40% of such revenue. If
the balance falls below 25%,
annual surpluses are to be budgeted
until the minimum balance
is achieved.
Recent Teachers’ Contract
History
On November 3, 2009 the Board
announced that agreement was
reached on a new three-year
contract with the teachers. As
discussed in the BETA January
2010 newsletter, the contract
terms were a significant disappointment.
In January 2009 BETA
initiated a taxpayer awareness
campaign and a dialogue with the
Board and District Administration
regarding the then impending
negotiation of a new teachers’
contract. The purpose of the
initiative was to encourage taxpayer
input and make certain the
Board was informed of the views
of taxpayers prior to commencement
of negotiations. Concerns
expressed by BETA included:
• The new contract should freeze
compensation in light of the
economic conditions
• The significant deterioration of
the economy, job loss, wage
cuts, declining property values
• The then current teachers’
contract running through
August 2009 provided raises
ranging from over 6% to almost
10% per year over three years
The new contract provides
the following average salary
increases based on all positions
in the salary grid:
•Year 1 – 4.8%, with a range of
3.5% to 5.6% (last school year)
•Year 2 – 6.5%, with a range of
5.3% to 7.4% (this school year)
•Year 3 – 5.3%, with a range of
4.0% to 6.1% (next school year)
Looking at the combined
impact of the current and prior
contracts:
• A teacher who was in Masters
Degree lane, Step 4 (three years
of experience) in the last year of
the prior contract would receive
an aggregate 15.4% increase
over the three years of the new
contract.
• A teacher who was in Masters
Degree lane plus 30 hours, Step
10 (nine years of experience) in
the last year of the prior contract
would receive an aggregate
18.4% increase over the three
years of the new contract.
• A teacher who was in Masters
Degree lane plus 45 hours, Step
14 (thirteen years of experience)
in the last year of the
prior contract would receive an
aggregate 19.5% increase over
the three years of the new contract.
That same teacher would
have been in Step 12 in year 1 of
the prior contract and the
increase from that point to the
end of the new contract would
be 41.8%, over five years.
The District 220 documents
referred to herein are available
on the 220 website (barrington220.
org). Calculations used
herein were made based on such
documents.
www.betaonline.us
(continued from page 1)