Gale E. Pavlak: Candidate Profile

Note: Answers provided have not been edited for grammar, misspellings or typos. In some instances, candidate claims that could not be immediately verified have been omitted. Jump to:BioKey IssuesQA Bio City: ElburnWebsite: Candidate did not respond.Office sought: Kaneland Community Unit D302Age: 65Family: Married, two children, two step-children, eight grandchildrenOccupation: Retired from Human Resources Field, currently a Substitute Teacher for Kaneland High SchoolEducation: Bachelor of Arts - Business ManagementAurora Univerity, Aurora, ILCivic involvement: Member of St. Gall Catholic Church, Elburn, ILMember of Bldg. Committee and CCD TeacherElected offices held: Candidate did not respond.Have you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain: NoCandidate's Key Issues Key Issue 1 The future of our students depends on the quality of their education and decisions made relating to district issues.Key Issue 2 Fiscal Responsibility based on ""Old Fashioned Common Sense""Key Issue 3 Stop Reckless Spending -- We have limited tax dollars. This money should be cherished and spent wisely. Why? Look at #1Questions Answers How satisfied are you that your district is preparing students for the next stage in their lives, whether it be from elementary into high school or high school into college or full-time employment? What changes, if any, do you think need to be made?I think the district does a good job in preparing students for each step in their education. Most students avail themselves of the expertise of their teachers and respect their knowledge. Students with a strong parental influence usually are more focused about their education. Parents need to be involved at all levels. Kaneland does a good job of making grades, lesson assignments, etc. available to parents through the disctrict's web source. The Fox Valley Career Center is an excellent addition to this school district.What budget issues will the district have to confront? What measures do you support to address them? If cuts are needed, be specific about programs and expenses that should be reduced or eliminated. Do you support any tax increases for local schools?As with all districts, funding is a major problem. A budget must be balanced and all cost cutting measures must be levied fairly across all areas. Good old fashioned ""common sense"" has to be the standard that decisions are derived from. From what I have seen thus far of the current budget---all reas have been considered when dealing with cost cutting. While increasing the tax levy for property taxes is never a popular method, IF all other consderations are identified and enacted, the harsh truth may be that the levy change is necessary. Expecting the state to deal with educational funding hasn't proven to be very supportive.Is experience as a teacher or support from a union valuable because it suggests educational insights or detrimental because it creates pro-teacher bias? Please clarify whether you have such experience or would accept union support.Being a Substitute Teacher for the past six years gives me the opportunity to view the educational process from a unique position and has given me the insight of what works and what doesn't. My background in Human Resources has also helped me to identify areas that require additional attention.As contract talks come up with various employee groups, what posture should the board take? Do you believe the district should ask for concessions, expect employee costs to stay about the same as they are now or provide increases in pay or benefits?Again, my experience in Human Resources has given me the background to look at contractual and personnel situations in a realistic manner. All sides of any situation must be considered---then a position must be developed that all sides can work with. Again, ""common sense"" is important.If your district had a superintendent or other administrator nearing retirement, would you support a substantial increase in his or her pay to help boost pension benefits? Why or why not?Definitely NOT! Such a practice only creates trust and/or privilege issues. I do not believe that ""special treatment"" for any group or individual is either fair or productive. Also-- benefit contributions must be evenly assessed across all groups---no one should be allowed to receive benefits without contributing to the cost. Our state and federal employees should also have to contribute in the same manner that employees in the private sector do.