Palos Heights Dist. 128 Referundum Deserves Serious Scrutiny: Letter

PALOS HEIGHTS, IL—I support our schools, teachers, and students. But supporting our schools does not mean taxpayers should stop asking hard questions about a significant, recurring tax increase.

District 128 is asking voters to approve a 59-cent limiting-rate increase that the district says will generate approximately $2.4 million in additional ongoing annual operating revenue. That deserves serious scrutiny.

Subscribe

The district and referendum supporters have repeatedly discussed approximately $1 million in planned reductions and the possibility of additional cuts if the referendum fails. I wanted to understand exactly what those reductions were, so I submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and sought the underlying public records.

What I learned was concerning. When I sought the underlying records through FOIA, the district's response was straightforward: "These options are still under evaluation. No decisions have been finalized."

This is an important distinction. This is not simply a personal opinion that the district has failed to provide enough detail. I specifically sought the documentation, and days before voters are being asked to decide whether to provide millions in additional recurring revenue, the district acknowledged that the specific reductions being discussed have not been finalized. If taxpayers are being told that cuts are necessary, they should be able to see what those cuts actually are.

Through those public-record requests, I also obtained invoices showing more than $51,000 in district spending on public-policy and community-engagement consulting and referendum-related video production. To be clear, I am not referring to spending by the privately funded YesD128 political committee. I am referring to expenditures made directly by District 128 using public funds.

Some of those expenses may properly qualify as informational or community-engagement activities rather than political campaigning. But taxpayers are still entitled to examine whether those expenditures were appropriate priorities while the district was simultaneously describing serious financial pressure.

There is also a larger financial question that deserves attention: spending growth. According to the district's own records, comparable K–8 enrollment increased by roughly 10% from 2022–23 to 2025–26, while non-capital expenditures increased by more than 21% over roughly the same period. In other words, spending grew at more than twice the rate of enrollment. That does not mean enrollment has no financial impact, but when enrollment growth is repeatedly cited as a major reason for the district's financial problems, taxpayers deserve an explanation for why spending grew so much faster.

This discussion should not be reduced to being "for the schools" or "against the schools." Residents can strongly support their schools while still expecting accountability for public money.

When taxpayers are asked for millions of dollars in recurring revenue, they should receive an equally detailed financial plan: what changed, where the money has gone, what has already been reduced, what additional reductions are being considered, and specifically how new revenue would be used. The underlying FOIA records, invoices, trial balances, and financial documents I relied on are available at NOd128.org so residents can review the source material and verify the numbers themselves.

Those are reasonable questions, and voters deserve clear answers before making their decision.

Greg Maka, Palos Heights