Michael (Mike) Murphy: Candidate profile

Bio

Name: Michael Murphy (Mike)

City: Vernon Hills

Office sought: District 73 School Board

Age: 37

Family: Wife Heidi, Children: Thomas 7, Ben 4

Occupation: Senior IT Consultant

Education: BA Computer Science

Civic involvement: Freemason

Previous elected offices held: None

Incumbent? If yes, when were you first elected?

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Michael-Mike-Murphy-for-D73-School-Board-391673781623801 Issue questions

What are the most important issues facing your district and how do you intend to address them?

Budget deficit spending is the most important as the district is running a $1.7 million/year deficit and no new revenue is coming in. I would look at absolutely every chance to be more efficient and spend less to clear this budget gap. Another major issue is overcrowding of classrooms. This is solvable by shifting kids between classes with less than 30 kids. There are some classrooms with as little as 24 and some with more than 30. Redistribution will help with overcrowding.

How satisfied are you that your school district is adequately 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?

This is something that the district is doing well as I can see this in my own child that attends a D73 school. More STEM programs would help prepare kids for future employment, however not all children will become engineers and scientists, and many unfilled jobs exist right now in areas that do not require even a college degree.

What budgetary issues will your district have to confront during the next four years and what measures do you support to address them? If you believe cuts are necessary, be specific about programs and expenses that should be considered for reduction or elimination. On the income side, do you support any tax increases? Be specific.

The referendum to borrow $48 million was passed recently, however the additional tax increase to fund the operating expenses needed was not. The board is authorized to borrow a large sum of money and they do not appear to have a plan to pay for the added cost of bond interest, maintenance of new facilities, carrying costs, etc., all while running the budget already at a deficit. To afford the added costs of such borrowing the board will need to cut at least 5 percent from its operating budget, just to break even or face eventual bankruptcy. As an IT professional that has done consulting for local governments in the past, I know IT spending is usually the section of the budget not many people pay attention to and often times there is wasteful spending there. I will assist in negotiating contracts for leased lines, phones, ISP connections, IT consulting services, and hardware and software purchases. Great efficiencies can happen when IT spending is planned and scoped properly. Are you currently employed by or retired from a school district, if so, which one? Is any member of your direct family - spouse, child or child-in-law - employed by the school district where you are seeking a school board seat?

No.

As contract talks come up with various school employee groups - teachers, support staff, etc. - what posture should the school board take? Do you believe the district should ask for concessions from its employees, expect employee costs to stay about the same as they are now or provide increases in pay or benefits?

This depends if the board's budget is fiscally sound, which in the present is it not. So these tough decisions about concessions are definitely on the table unless we can work together to find ways to cut costs and be more efficient, and judging by what I have seen in the budget there are several areas where we can cut costs without effecting teachers or students directly.

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?

I would never under any circumstances support boosting pay for a superintendent or any other administrator nearing retirement at the expense of teachers, students, and taxpayers. It is unfair to hardworking teachers and taxpayers to allow an administrator or superintendent (whom often times is already making well over $150,000/year) to boost taxpayer funded pension payments. We already have some of the highest property taxes in the United States and this is one of the main reasons why.