Divided Lame Duck School Board Approves Raise For Administrator

SKOKIE, IL — A lame duck Niles Township High School District 219 Board of Education last month approved a four-year contract extension worth about $1 million for an assistant superintendent without the recommendation of the district's superintendent. No explanation for the move has been publicly provided by the board members who supported it in a 4-3 vote.

The move provoked pointed criticism from a pair of board members who read statements at the meeting questioning the propriety of signing a contract through 2022 with Eric Trimberger, the chief school business official and assistant superintendent for business. Trimberger, who retired from the U.S. Navy as a lieutenant commander in 2009, joined District 219 in May 2014.

The April 22 special board meeting called by Board President David Ko was the final one for members Mark Sproat, Linda Lampert and Brian Novak. All three decided against seeking another term in last month's election and have since been replaced, while Ko was re-elected. New board members Rebecca Abraham, Jill Manrique and James Specker were seated at the board's April 29 special meeting.

According to the terms of Trimberger's previous contract, signed in December 2017 and covering the period from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018, he was due an annual base salary of more than $217,000, in addition to benefits like having the board cover employee pension contributions. Trimberger's new contract covers a four-year period starting July 1, 2018. He would be paid $221,559 for the 2018-19 calendar year, with 3 percent built-in annual raises and more specified benefits.

Other administrators are employees with one-year contracts, but at a Dec. 5, 2018 special meeting, four members of the seven-member board decided to remove Trimberger from the contract and salary schedule recommended by Superintendent Steven Isoye after a two-hour discussion in closed session. The move was not noticed on an agenda and the district did not make any recording of the open meeting. The only mention in the minutes is one line: "There was discussion about removing Eric Trimberger from the one-year contract as listed on the recommendation."

Ahead of the closely divided vote, which saw Ko, Lampert, Joseph Nowik and Sproat support the assistant superintendent's new deal, two of the three members of the board to oppose the read statements criticizing the move. None of the majority commented publicly on the vote.

Richard Evonitz first asked Isoye if he had recommended Trimberger's new contract. The superintendent said he had not. Evonitz then opened his remarks by saying it was important for the board to reflect on how it came to the decision for the community to understand what was going on and for the board to improve:

At our Dec. 4 board meeting, several members of the board's majority sought an amendment to a motion that would require the board to enter into negotiations with the assistant superintendent for business for the purposes of establishing a multi-year employment contract. That matter was not on the meeting agenda for that night's meeting, and the board had not held any discussions on it during 2018, yet we proceeded to a discussion without the benefit of having the matter, as a full board, in consultation with the superintendent before voting on it. Generally, discussion of the performance of an employee seeking a multi-year deal is essential prior to the awarding such an employment contract. However this board did not ask this employee's supervisor, the superintendent, for an evaluation of this employee's performance, nor for his resulting recommendation on the length of contract. In fact, we are proceeding on this action without the recommendation of the superintendent. Why is the majority ready to commit over $500,000 in compensation without an understanding of the employee's current performance? We owe our community assurance our of due diligence in matters of this magnitude. I hope that going forward we won't take board actions unless the matter is on the agenda and has been part of a meaningful discussion in which all board members partake. In the coming months, I'll ask the board to consider changes to our district policy that would prevent administrators and board members from bringing forth proposals to grant employment benefits or multi-year agreements without the recommendation of the superintendent. I support Dr. Isoye. As superintendent, I trust his judgement in hiring, managing and evaluating district personnel and will work to make sure that the board's action here does nothing to undermine that.

Evonitz was followed by Brian Novak, the only of the three departing board members to oppose Trimberger's new contract. He said he had been honored to serve the board over the past four years and was particularly proud of the way the board addressed "abuses related to nepotism and cronyism" with the previous administration.

It has brought me great discomfort, therefore, to discuss the action before us now, which I feel is contrary to our previously agreed position regarding favoritism and preferential treatment. This action stands in direct conflict to everything I believe in and have sought to eradicate from this district over the course of the last four years. It is contrary to process, and it is contrary to procedure. I have tried over the past several months to get a better understanding of how and why several board members have pushed this action forward. However I am not confident in the information I have received, and so I sit here today still unclear as to why we are asked to vote on this motion against the recommendation from the superintendent. The seemingly arbitrary way in which such an important issue, both in terms of good board governance, as well as good fiscal management, has worked its way through this board should bring us all pause. But that is not the case. Rather, there appears to be a clear division among us regarding what is and isn't appropriate board action in this district. I've taken much pride in my board service and it saddens me to conclude my tenure here by participating in such a monumental step backward. I look to the newly elected members of the board of education who will hopefully further our initial goals — to create processes and procedures which are equitable and fair.

According to the terms of Trimberger's contract, the superintendent or his designee is responsible for conducting his evaluation. His boss, Isoye, has previously told Patch he has a policy of refusing to discuss any matters to do with district employees unless required by law. Board President David Ko has not responded to a query as to whether a school board should be in the practice of approving administrator contracts without the recommendation of a superintendent, who is generally the only employee such boards hire themselves. But Ko told Pioneer Press he believed the board followed proper procedures and processes to approve the contract.

Abraham suggested the board may have granted the contract to Trimberger to reward him for his whistleblowing role that contributed to exposing the financial scandal that led to the resignations of former Superintendent Nanciann Gatta and Assistant Superintendent for Operations John Heintz in 2015, according to the Skokie Review. She said it was "not our place to subjectively reward him out of gratitude for his past work, when we should instead be relying on a superintendent’s objective evaluation of his performance in determining the length of his contract and any compensation or benefit."

At the same meeting where Trimberger's new four-year contract was approved, board members approved a settlement with teachers totaling more than $149,000 to compensate teachers for having more students in their classrooms than allowed under caps to class sizes included in collective bargaining agreements. According to a copy of the settlement the district released in response to a public records request, 21 teachers will receive amounts between $1,342 and $23,539 to resolve class size limits exceeded in the 2016-17 school year.

Last August, another settlement involving botched employee compensation was settled when district administrators discovered they had accidentally overpaid a part-time library clerk for years. The employee was paid an extra $66,531 over a five-year period and agreed to a payment plan to repay half the money by July 2023.

Related:

• D-219 School Board Moves To Remove Member Over Lawsuit
• Niles West Staffer Overpaid For Years Must Pay Back Cash
• Judge Dismisses Board Member's Suit Against Board, Superintendent
• District 219 To Settle With More Ex-Staff
• Gatta, Heintz On Leave, District 219 Board Hires Forensic Firm