112 Acted in Haste to Rush 'Doomsday Scenario': Letter

The following letter was written and submitted by Paul Lucas.

In the last few weeks, District 112 has acted with haste, error, and increasing recklessness in events surrounding the upcoming vote on its $200 million educational referendum. At the February 16th board meeting, board members voted 4 to 3 to support a rash, insufficiently planned “doomsday plan” in case of a failed referendum. This event and others call for citizens to publicly question the recent conduct of the Board and Administration.

1) In an effort to spin community reaction to exposure of a Nagle Hartray “draft memo,” D112 staff raced to publish a district website reply that misrepresented the two citizens’ discussion of that memo during board meeting public comments. While the District has since corrected its error, it cannot repair the potential damage done by wide internet dissemination of those public misrepresentations. With no public apology to either man, the District has opened itself to possible legal action as a result of its haste and lack of careful review of the statements each man actually made.

2) At the same meeting, Mohsin Dada confessed to a major error in financial projections about how long the District will remain solvent after its massive, costly reconfiguration project is completed. Instead of carefully reviewing that error during the public meeting and discussing how such an error impacts the referendum and what residents have been told about it, school board members glossed over the error and moved on to discussion of their “doomsday plan.” Even now, Dada’s error is buried in fine print on the district website, without adequate acknowledgement of the error’s ramifications. What other numbers has or is the District wrong about?

3) Most troubling of all, D112 has acted with extreme haste in the last few weeks to rush a vote about a “doomsday scenario” (closure of 4 schools starting in 2017) in the event of a failed referendum. The sudden “next year” time scheme for these budget deficit reduction closures is completely inconsistent with fall 2015 board discussions of a 5-7 year time frame for such drastic deficit reduction measures (should they even prove necessary).

The rash addition of Ravinia School to the group of schools to be closed, given that it had long been tabled from consideration for closure, is obviously calculated during this pre-election period at converting “No” voters in the Ravinia precincts, where there is high voter turnout and deep opposition to the referendum. Even worse, this drastic decision was supported without detailed planning or thorough discussion during public meetings. Further, although presented under the guise of “fiduciary responsibility, “ this vote was supported with full knowledge that D112’s budget surplus provides ample financial cushion for the Board to take time to develop an alternative referendum, should the March referendum fail. In fruitless attempts to dissuade the Board from rash action, board member Karla Livney said, “I urge the Board to slow down, take a deep breathe and regroup. Let’s agree...to dig deep to see to what else we can do to save the District money..

The public will not fault us for failing to be hasty...I’d argue that the community members who want to know exactly what will happen in the face of a failed referendum are far outweighed by the community members who want us to move more cautiously.” Dissenting board member Eric Ephraim echoed her concerns, saying, “We are moving way too fast. We don’t have enough information, and to make this decision now is just not responsible.”

The recklessness exhibited by this Board and Administration to force a “Yes” vote no matter the cost to prudence or money is deeply troubling. I urge all of my fellow citizens to speak out against the District’s recent actions. Above all, though, I urge fellow residents to vote “no” to the referendum, pressure the school board to return to the table for a more reasonable referendum if this one fails, and support new school board members who will act prudently and with a willingness to discern the will of the community for “change, but not radical change.” Unfortunately, the current school board’s plans could not be more radical. Fortunately, four of seven school board seats are up for reelection in April of 2017.

Paul Lucas