Nick E. Papanicholas Jr.: 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: Mount ProspectWebsite: Candidate did not respond.Office sought: Mount Prospect Elementary D57Age: 32Family: Married, two childrenOccupation: Nicholas Associates, Inc. - Mt. Prospect, IL General Contractor/Construction ManagerEducation: Bachelor of Business Administration, St. Norbert College, 2000Civic involvement: NoneElected offices held: NoneHave you ever been arrested for or convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain: NoCandidate's Key Issues Key Issue 1 Continuing Educational ExcellenceKey Issue 2 BudgetKey Issue 3 Transparancy for the PublicQuestions 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 feel District 57 does an fantastic job in preparing students for the next step into High School. The ISAT scores show that the teachers are doing their jobs, and that the programs are preparing the children for academic growth and excellence. If elected I look forward to learning more about the programs, and any/all ways to improve the education.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?Obviously there is a budget deficit to contend with, but things need to be looked at in basic,simple terms. What can be reduced or eliminated that does not sacrifice the safety and first rate education? There are no easy decisions to be made, but all decisions need to be made for the good of the student. All other options need to be exhausted prior to me supporting a tax increase to make up the shortfall.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.No comment at this time.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?This is an issue that all businesses or government entities are faced with - Public and Private. I am an owner of a construction company, and for the last 3 years we have been faced with the obstacle of keeping our current workforce going, and all while trying to be as competitive as possible to secure contracts. Fortunately, we have been able to keep all of our employees working 40 hour weeks, but have been unable to give the raises or increased benefits that we would have liked to. This is a decision that has to be made, and was discussed in detail with all employees. We are in a down market in almost every field of work, and when revenues are coming in something has to give. So I would be a supportor of trying to freeze raises and maintain current benefits in hope to avoid layoffs or program cuts.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?Not if it was a drastic jump at the tail end of a career. There needs to be consistency with pay raises from year to year. The system cannot be thrown out of sync as it has in the past throughout the State of Illinois. As an example, lets say years 1 thru 5 the administrator was getting a 2%-5% pay raise, and retirement is looming after year 8. All of a sudden that pay raise goes to 6%-10% during years 6 thru 8, well that is a drastic jump that aids in the increased pension benefits which ultimately costs the taxpayer more money.