Palos Election 2016 Referendum: Choice Between More Government Debt Borrowing and Spending Projects, or An Owed Tax Reduction

By now, many have probably heard about the upcoming Palos School District 118 bond issue ballot initiative, which is little more than yet another government effort to further its unsustainable debt borrowing and spending habits at the expense of the hardworking taxpayers whom they have tried to deny the right to vote on the matter.

In November 2015, in the hope that no one would take notice, Palos School District 118 utilized a decades-old debt borrowing practice to quietly and unilaterally approve a debt spending measure that sought to acquire $6.5 million in working cash fund bonds without any input from taxpayers.

Fortunately for the residents of District 118, people did take notice, and these individuals worked tirelessly to block the measure, ultimately forcing it onto the upcoming November 2016 general election ballot. As a result, Palos voters and taxpayers will have a right to decide the matter themselves for the first time since November 1998, when the District proposed another tax increase.

Not to belabor the exceptionally long history of debt borrowing and spending practices by District 118, but following the Board’s 1998 tax increase effort, the Board again pushed for yet another tax increase, only a few months later, in the Spring of 1999.

In March 1999, the Chicago Tribune quoted a former school board member and former Palos Park resident, Anne Walsh, who was then a supporter of the effort as saying, “We [the District 118 board] have been borrowing for over 10 years, and that’s not okay.” This would put the continuous debt borrowing and spending habits of the District 118 Board going as far back as 1988—and that isn’t even counting all of the times prior. This only accounts for the repetitive, year after year, borrowing practices where one bond issue is approved and upon its expiration a new, subsequent debt obligation is approved to take its place—like the current proposal on this year’s ballot. In 1999, even Mrs. Walsh knew that 10 years of continuous debt borrowing was “not okay.”

And 17 years later, in 2016, I happen to agree with Mrs. Walsh, too—this continued habit of back-to-back debt borrowing and spending is NOT okay.

Turning back to the current $6.5 million ballot referendum, the District 118 school board, led by its Superintendent, Anthony Scarsella, and President, John Faustino, vehemently fought the referendum effort for transparency and accountability.

Both the Superintendent and President, in full cooperation with each of the District 118 Board members, hoped to deny the public its right to vote on these matters of taxes and debt spending for government construction projects. Their original, thwarted, desire was—and still is—to continue the 30-plus year practice of back-to-back debt borrowing and spending, but worse—they were seeking to continue the practice of unilaterally imposing taxpayer debt obligations through a bond process that does not require, nor provide, a popular vote on the issue.

In January 2016, thankfully, both the members of the District 118 board and the Superintendent lost their fight to deny voters a choice. Ultimately, despite the resistance and objections from District 118 Board members, the successful petition efforts of local residents, and their friends and family, compelled the District to reluctantly place their debt measure on the November 2016 ballot.

However, having the past bond practices exposed, in an attempt to appear “transparent,” the Superintendent and the members of the board decided not to place the originally approved bond issue on the ballot, however. Instead, they decided to approve a new bond initiative – $6.5 million in construction bonds, which are required, by law, to be voted upon by referendum.

But, this is not how “transparency” works. A person who is transparent is only so because they, of their own accord and voluntary willingness, shine light on a particular matter so the world can view it clearly. A person cannot claim to be transparent if the only reason a light is being shown on a matter is because others had to fight to ensure light was thrust upon a matter. When that is the case—when others have had to fight to compel something to be brought to light—it is those “others” who are, in fact, transparent, not the person whose decisions and practices had to be forced into the light.

When asked why they didn’t do this in the first place last December, they indicated they were entitled to circumvent the voters through the working cash fund bond process, as was the past practice, and instead of the $6.5 million, they could have asked for approximately $47 million in debt borrowing.

Thanks to your concerned friends and neighbors, and their friends and family—not the District 118 Board or its President or Superintendent—the new bond issue was forced onto the ballot. This debt issue is a demand from the District 118 Board for a new $6.5 million debt obligation, which will be a brand new tax burden, only months after finally paying off the previous four year debt borrowing and spending plan that the Board, unbeknownst to the taxpayers, quietly forced through four years ago.

The ballot question will tell you that it is being used for programming and construction of facilities for programming. Make no mistake – it is not funding any educational programs. Not a single penny of this money will go to educational programming, and regardless of whether you vote “No” against increasing debt spending, the current educational programs will not be negatively impacted—or improved. Every single penny of the increased tax obligation will go to unnecessary construction projects, hand-selected by the Superintendent and rubber stamped by the Board and its President.

Additionally, of the $6.5 million in debt, only $3.25 million will go to the construction of the four new classrooms that the Board has publicly discussed. The additional so-called bells and whistles that the District has tried to use to justify the hefty per-classroom price tag, explained below, will cost an additional $1.6 million and bring the grand total for the “Palos West Addition” portion to $4.85 million (of the $6.5 million in debt).

Now, let’s look at the hefty per-classroom cost analysis. The Superintendent has struggled with this elementary math, so I ask that you please do it yourself so that you, too, can be confident in the financial facts of this costly classroom expansion (which is only one portion of the entire expensive debt spending project). The simple arithmetic involving a total cost of $3.25 million for the construction of 4 new classrooms – alone – looks like this: $3.25 (total costs) ÷ 4 new classrooms = $812,500 per classroom.

While the Superintendent, the District 118 Board, and the proposal behind the ballot question all might be deceiving - the analysis for the voter is not:

Vote "No" and you've told the Superintendent and the school board that from this point forward you want to have a say in how and when they take your money–-and you also cast a ballot to lower your taxes and put an end to the 30-plus years of back-to-back borrowing and spending habits.

Vote "Yes" and you will have approved a tax-surcharge that is in addition to already high taxes, and in excess of your fair share of the tax burden; you will have also voted to deny yourself, and other middle–class homeowners and taxpayers, the tax relief the community has earned as a result of the elimination of the prior debt obligation that the Board is now seeking to replace with this new taxpayer obligation for $6.5 million of more government debt borrowing and spending.

Ask yourself, is a fiscally responsible individual and a good steward of your money someone who would decide to spend $812,500 of your hard earned tax dollars for a single classroom, without so much as seeking your input or ever thinking they needed to in the first place?

If your answer to that simple question is “No”—then your answer on your November 8th general election ballot should also be “No.”

Vote “No” this election on the “School District 118, Issue Bonds” question and put an end to excessive, unnecessary government debt practices.

Vote “No” this election on the “School District 118, Issue Bonds” question and reduce your taxes, and the taxes of the other hardworking middle-class homeowners and taxpayers.

Whichever you should choose, that is the ultimate point here– you finally have a right to choose. Despite fierce opposition from the Superintendent and the District 118 Board, your friends and neighbors, and their friends and family, have all fought to provide you with the right to choose for the first time. We sincerely hope that you decided to exercise and preserve that choice this November.