Letter on teacher salaries off base

To the editor: This letter is to take issue with the defamatory inaccuracies perpetuated by Mr. Steve Safley's recent letter attacking the teachers of District 211.

His letter contains wrong or misinterpreted facts that need correcting.

First, he claims that District 211 teachers have the third highest salaries. However, any time you see 211 salary reports, you must automatically deduct the 9 percent that district teachers pay into the state pension system. Published figures are thus inflated and misleading.

Second, he claims -- without any source, noticeably--that District 211 students rank among the lowest in terms of ACT scores. In reality, any adequate research into the district's report card (such as through the Illinois State Board of Education) shows that its scores consistently outperform both state and national scores. On the off-chance that his statistic is correct, ranking 63rd out of the hundreds of state school districts is not sub-standard performance.

Third, he randomly guesses that 80-90 percent of 211 students are being neglected: an impossibility, since more than two-thirds of them meet or exceed state test standards and 88 percent of 211 graduates are college-bound.

Three-fourths of 211 teachers hold master's degrees or higher. Is it realistic to assume that a group of such highly educated professionals do not value education or don't care for the students to whom they have dedicated their lives?

Mr. Safley overlooks such facts as the award bestowed on a 211 school by the College Board (the company that owns the SAT) for having the most students in the nation passing AP exams. All the district's successes should be directly attributed to its teachers.

He criticizes jaded, dispassionate teachers. I've never met a teacher who acts like that, even when faced with hateful, aggressive, and sadly misinformed rhetoric like Mr. Safley's.

Heather Munao

Elgin

Teacher pay higher than reported

To the editor: Your front page article of Thursday, Sept. 13 is so misleading, I'm forced call you on this, publicly.

This is such a misrepresentation through exclusion of information, I have to question if you were duped by the union president or, perhaps you intended to convey a gross inaccuracy.

Leaving the step increase portion of teacher pay out of the story significantly misrepresents the teachers' compensation package. If you are going to step into the middle of collective bargaining in progress, then at the least, present all the information.

The offered 3.4 percent increase you reported must be added to the step increase, leading to a pay raise much higher than what most of the district's residents expect. The step increase is automatic and based entirely on time on the job. If you were unable to confirm this information with board of education representatives, a simple FOI (Freedom of Information Act) request will get you a copy of the current teachers' contract. You can calculate the full increase for yourself, as the offer was conveyed by Mr. Braglia. If you're going to quote him, at least follow up with verification of his "facts."

As a taxpayer, I expect a competitive level of compensation for our teachers. I am not willing to accept an increase almost tripling the true level of inflation. The board of education would be irresponsible to agree, considering the district was within months of being bankrupt before the referendum was passed.

My experience as an active District 211 parent and elected board of education member was always a positive one when I worked with our talented, professional staff, at all levels. They deserve a fair and competitive compensation package, but it must be one the taxpayers can afford. I hope the union leadership will end their practice of confrontation and divisiveness and try collaboration and cooperation.

Inciting fear and concern through inaccurate reporting is irresponsible. Your responsibility as the leading local newspaper is to report the all facts accurately and completely.

Thomas J. Anderson

Inverness

District 15 board violated ethics rules

To the editor: Your recent article regarding the Sept. 12 District 15 school board meeting failed to report the most important story of all --that the District 15 school board voted 3 to 2 (Millar, Carlson, Ekeberg yes; Quinn and Rowden no, Chapman abstained) to retain the superintendent search firm of Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates to conduct the search for our next superintendent.

Why is this news? Because newly elected board member Gerald Chapman is a senior associate/owner and treasurer of the board of directors of the Hazard firm. This constitutes a blatant and illegal conflict of interest.

Was the choice of Chapman's search firm procedurally controlled to ensure openness? The board never had a public discussion of the search firm issue until Wednesday night, the very same night they took a vote on it!

All prior discussions regarding the retention of the search firm were held in closed executive session meetings. The public had no opportunity to question the choice of Chapman's firm, or to ponder the ethical implications of having Chapman's firm on the receiving end of District 15 monies.

In addition, Chapman never excused himself from the board's discussion prior to the vote. Shame on the board members who voted to overlook the fact that it was contrary to written District 15 policy to even consider Chapman's firm.

Maybe this is the way Chapman did business in District 211 during his tenure as superintendent; however, we must demand that our school board members in District 15 act ethically and in accordance with the written district policy and the laws of our state.

If Chapman and the other board members who voted "yes" cannot understand how wrong their actions were, perhaps they should resign immediately. They are not competent to represent the public's interests on our school board.

Mary E. Vanek

Palatine

Deer Park lacking sense of priorities

To the editor: At the Deer Park Village Board meeting on Sept. 17, three trustees voted against granting permission for the Vehe Farm Foundation to erect a 25-foot windmill on village property. Unfortunately, President Gifford cast the deciding vote to approve it. What was he thinking?

The windmill is a frivolous idea and a waste of money. At a time when the Vehe barn construction project is over budget and still incomplete after nearly three years of rehab, President Gifford voted to erect a useless windmill at Vehe Farm.

President Gifford should have recognized his personal responsibility to the residents of Deer Park by focusing the attention of the Vehe Farm Foundation on repairing the run down corncrib and tractor shed. Many buildings at Vehe Farm need immediate attention.

Village funds were diverted to Vehe Farm from other line items on the budget. Most Deer Park residents know first hand that the road repair program has fallen far behind schedule over the past few years. The rain last month also demonstrated just how neglected drainage improvements have been in the village.

Deer Park does not have the money for required maintenance. The financial future in Deer Park has gotten so bleak that the board of trustees has started the process of placing a tax referendum on the February 2008 ballot.

The new windmill at Vehe Farm may be a pleasant sight for a few families who live in Hamilton Estates. Most of the residents of Deer Park will see it as a towering reminder of the repairs and maintenance they were denied over the past few years. The board's vote to approve a useless windmill at Vehe Farm sends an inappropriate message about our financial priorities in Deer Park.

The board should reconsider this decision at the next meeting.

Richard F. Chay

Deer Park