Latest bargaining update doesn't say much

The latest news release on teacher contract negotiations in Huntley Unit District 158 was a revelation.

Actually, it was only two sentences that didn't say much.

The District 158 school board is waiting for the teachers union to submit a "reasonable proposal ... from which negotiations can continue," according to the June 20 update.

The release also notes the next bargaining session is on June 30 - the day the current teacher contract expires.

This means the district and the union - barring a miracle - will not reach an agreement by the time the current contract is up.

This shouldn't be cause for alarm. The more important deadline is the first day of school on Aug. 25.

As the date approaches, the union can put pressure on the district to make a deal before school starts.

Missing the June 30 deadline is not unheard-of for District 158. The board approved the current deal with the union on Aug. 24, 2006.

The district up until last week had been good about updating the public on the progress of negotiations.

I understand if no real progress has been made since the district and the union started working with federal mediators.

But an update saying how many mediation sessions have been held and how those sessions have unfolded would shed some needed light on the major sticking points stalling negotiations.

Let's hope the next two months of bargaining are more fruitful than the first three.

Promies, promises: The specter of the 2006 referendum continues to haunt Community Unit District 300.

The referendum - specifically, promises made to taxpayers during the campaign - was very much on the lips of District 300 officials during the recent debate on how to fix crowded east-side schools.

An argument was made that I couldn't let pass without saying something.

The argument, essentially was this: Remember those promises the district and its surrogates made to taxpayers during the referendum campaign?

Well, they weren't really promises. Or, to alter a classic evasion from our former president, that depends on what your definition of "promise" is.

Here's what board member Chris Stanton said: "No dollar was specifically earmarked for any one construction project. ... It was a commitment on the referendum, but it's a variable commitment."

Oh, a variable commitment. Is that kind of like an open marriage?

District 300 residents are reasonable people. They can understand if conditions have changed, warranting a new plan for spending referendum revenue.

I'm not saying there are no circumstances under which District 300 should break its promises.

But if you're going to break a promise, at least be honest about it.