District 300 board needs to investigate Aramark workers' contract dispute

Local union official Laura Garza left a recent Community Unit District 300 school board meeting disappointed.

Board President Joe Stevens cut off Garza, of Service Employees International Union Local 1, before she had a chance to list Aramark Corp.'s alleged shortcomings in District 300.

The union has charged that Aramark underpays its employees, effectively bars many from receiving health care benefits and doesn't provide them the equipment they need to do their jobs.

The top-50 food service contractor provides lunches and lunchroom staff to District 300 schools, but Stevens argued that the issues the union official was addressing weren't relevant to the board.

The officials in the SEIU Local 1 who attended the meeting begged to differ -- and so do I.

Aramark and its employees handle an important element of students' daily routines, their lunch, and I wouldn't be the first to note the importance of kids' nutrition.

Also, while Aramark employees are not technically on the district's payroll, they work for the district and its students; the millions of dollars District 300 pays to Aramark each year go a long way toward paying the wages and benefits of those workers.

Lastly, the district's administration and school board must exercise oversight.

If there are allegations of impropriety, the district has an obligation to ensure a contractor is not only fulfilling its contract obligations, but also maintaining the same high standards the district would set for its employees and students.

This is true even if, as some District 300 officials suspect, that the recent allegations are motivated solely by SEIU's nationwide unionization drive, or if the union's claims ultimately are not borne out.

District 158 official denies claim: It seems like the controversy over Huntley Unit District 158's Nov. 13 school board meeting will drag on forever.

In a story I wrote last month about the failure of four recording systems at the meeting, I wrote that according to Superintendent John Burkey, board Secretary Kim Skaja pressed the "record" button for the DVD system.

Actually, Burkey said, Skaja pressed the button twice, causing the open-session recording to stop after just half an hour.

After reading the story, Skaja contacted me to tell me that it wasn't her but Burkey's secretary, Naomi Fettes, who pressed the button.

Unfortunately, the statement, which is now in question, made it into at least one other news source and may come up at this week's board meeting (my deadline falls before the meeting).

I'm not sure if the portion that was recorded would clear this up, showing either Skaja or Fettes pressing the button, but I plan to watch the DVD to see if there's anything I can glean from it.

Fettes declined to comment about the meeting, directing me to Burkey.

Burkey declined to give me an answer, but you can judge his response for yourself.

"I know the answer, but I'm not going to put an employee out there in public," Burkey said.

He did say it was not Skaja.

That certainly helps, although it would be nice to have visual evidence or at least confirmation of who actually pressed the button.

I don't think the answer is particularly important, considering the other recording failures at the meeting and barring evidence of intent (I'd be shocked if anyone could provide this).

I believe, however, that I owe Skaja the courtesy of noting her objection -- especially considering others may seize on the issue, and because I didn't have the courtesy to call her for comment when the original story ran.