After Tense Public Hearing, D86 Budget Posted Online

Residents of can now review highlights of the budget for the 2011-2012 fiscal year on the district’s website. The same presentation that was presented to school board members Monday night by business manager Jeff Eagan is available under the documents heading on the business office page.

The board voted 5-2 in favor of adopting a budget that anticipates $82.8 million in revenue and $82.6 million in expenses.

Dianne Barrett and Dr. Richard Skoda were the only board members to vote against the budget. Although the overall budget projects a surplus of $174,000 for the fiscal year, Barrett expressed worry about a deficit in the education fund estimated at $456,000.

“I’m still concerned about the ed fund moving forward because this kind of deficit, especially with the recent teachers’ contract, can’t be sustained,” she said, noting that the education fund also operated with a projected deficit in the previous budget.

“I don’t think we should pat ourselves on the back,” Barrett said after Superintendent Dr. Nicholas Wahl noted the anticipated budget surplus. “We have almost a half-a-million dollars deficit in the ed fund. Therefore, one of the other funds is going to have to compensate for that negative. … Last time, we talked about a surplus in the operations and maintenance fund, which I really don’t like to see because that’s for the infrastructure of the buildings and making sure we keep investing in our facilities.”

The FY 2012 budget actually projects a deficit of $64,000 in the operations and maintenance fund, but a surplus of $631,000 in the transportation fund.

Revenue and expenditure percentages

Eagan explained that nearly 93 percent of district revenues come from local sources, including a projected $70.2 million from real estate taxes.

State revenue represents about five percent of the district’s income, Eagan said, while the federal government provides about two percent.

The $66.1 million education fund accounts for 80 percent of district expenditures. The largest expense is employee salaries, projected to cost the district $46 million in FY 2012.

The largest salary goes to Wahl, who is slated to earn $245,670 for the fiscal year. Next on the list is Principal Michael McGrory at $152,309, followed by Athletic Director Timothy Feigh at $147,065. Hinsdale South Principal Dr. Brian Waterman’s salary is $142,834 for the year.

Employee benefits are expected to add up to $14.5 million for the year.

Transparency of budget process questioned

“Where was this budget posted?” Barrett asked Eagan. “I was at the library and I did not see it there.”

Eagan said the final budget had not been posted because it had not been adopted yet. He said the tentative budget had been on display in the district’s administrative offices since June 21.

“Some residents complained that they went online to look for it and couldn’t find it,” Barrett said. “It’s a little disappointing that residents weren’t able to take a look at that.”

Wahl said, “If the board would like to have that on the Internet, that’s something we could do. We’ve never had that directive.”

Skoda said the budget adopted Monday was different from the tentative budget posted over the summer.

“So how could anybody come here tonight with an informed opinion, even if they studied the tentative budget?” Skoda asked.

“We’re following school code,” Wahl said. “If this board wants to do that differently, please let us know. We’re happy to comply.”

“I think that needs to happen,” Skoda said.

Board member Michael Kuhn said the method of publicly posting the tentative budget is a discussion for a different time and not a part of Monday's process. 

“It’s too bad this discussion didn’t happen a month ago,” board member Kay Gallo said. “We’re trying to talk budget now, not procedures. It kind of sounds like you’re trying to find blame with Mr. Eagan for doing something when he’s just directed by us. We haven’t had that discussion to put it online.”

Barrett said she assumed the budget would be online, leading to an exchange with Kuhn.

“How long have you been on this board?” Kuhn asked Barrett.

“That doesn’t matter,” Barrett said.

“It does matter,” Kuhn said, “because we go through this process every year.”

“I have received complaints from residents,” Barrett said.

“If you had a concern about this, you should have brought it up sooner, not the night we’re going for our hearing,” Kuhn said.

Board President Dennis Brennan said it was "fascinating" to watch Kuhn and Barrett argue.

“I think we can change that in the future,” Brennan said.

Residents express views

The discussion between the board members elicited a negative reaction from former board member Judy Coglianese of Burr Ridge during the public comment portion of the budget hearing.

“I’m very disappointed,” she said. “I came here tonight to see what you’re doing with my money. … I’m pretty shocked how you treat each other. I didn’t expect that. There doesn’t seem to be respect in this room.”

Coglianese wondered if the board members respected the public and their money.

“We don’t know what you’re spending it on,” she said. “Those of us who are taxpayers are left in the dark. … I think we need to be more open.”

John Greaves of Hinsdale also had some harsh criticism for the board, suggesting that if a corporation followed a similar budget process it could land a director in prison for civil or criminal negligence.

“I suggest you attend to revising your model,” he said.

But Ly Hotchkin of Burr Ridge, another former member of the board, defended it.

“I am offended by some of the comments made,” she said. “The best thing about this area—and if I didn’t like it I’d move—is the schools. And you get what you pay for. I’m so thankful to all of you for the very, very able job you do. I do get tired of those who keep nitpicking at a lot of stuff without any knowledge.”