advertisement

Tim Griskey: Candidate profile

Bio

Name: Tim Griskey

City: Algonquin

Office sought: Huntley School Board (District 158)

Age: 41

Family: Married for 16 years to Christy, a Registered Nurse, with 1 son, Luke, 13

Occupation: Financial Crimes Prevention

Education: Northwestern University, Bachelor of Science in Organizational Behavior

Civic involvement: Church, local charities, Parent Teacher Association, Youth athletics (football and hockey), Northwestern Alumni Association

Previous elected offices held: None

Incumbent: If yes, when were first elected? No

Website: n/a

Facebook: fb.me/GriskeyForHuntleySchoolBoard

Twitter: n/a

Issue questions

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

For the first time in the past 2 decades, Huntley will begin to see declining student enrollments with the graduation of the class of 2020, as fewer students begin than graduating. In addition, the Five Year Budget Plan is forecasting significant deficits beginning in FY2021 which if not addressed now will lead to large cuts later, or increased taxes.

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?

I am extremely proud to have my son as a student in the district and believe it will prepare him well. As the global economy continues to evolve, the district should continue to monitor and evolve reinvesting in trade and technical preparation programs too.

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 district's 5 year budget plan is projecting close to a $5 million deficit, yet continues to add additional staff and overhead at a time that enrollment is at its peak. For the first time the district is projecting student enrollment to begin declining. I do not advocate cutting any existing programs, but new programs should be held to a higher level of scrutiny as should capital expenditures.

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?

Neither I nor any immediate family members have been employed by a school district. I do have several close friends who teach in Texas, Ohio, Michigan and other Illinois districts including Districts U-46 (Elgin), 300 (Dundee) and 220 (Barrington).

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?

The school board should start from a place of transparency and listening to the requests of the related teams. It should be neutral and then review the requests and compare to other local and comparable districts. I started my career working in the Airlines, and adversarial and confrontational relationships during contract negotiations never benefit either side. We entrust these individuals with our children - we should treat them with the respect they deserve and have earned, but we need to balance it with the oversight responsibility and provide a level of credible challenge.

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?

While this does not apply to District 158 and Dr. Rowe, I do not support artificially inflating a superintendent's salary, or any other administrator, teacher, or staff member's salary to boost their pension benefits. I find this ethically wrong and an abuse of taxpayer money (not just for this year but the ongoing cost of that pension).

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.