Sunday, November 12, 2017

Critics of BOE Must Wake Up to D181's Fiscal Reality!

Over the last two weeks, since the BOE approved a Mutual Agreement to part ways with Dr. White on June 30, 2018, we have heard angry parents cry foul and blame the BOE majority for acting without justification.  These critics have chosen to overlook or forgive the fact that Dr. White NEVER told the BOE that he had been given specific instructions by the district's attorney to ensure proper and timely publication by the DuPage Election Commission of the HMS referendum posting, and that he failed to accept ANY responsibility for an error that could have been avoided if he had actually done his job.They have labeled White's actions as a simple mistake. Most of the public critics, who have commented on the VOTE YES FOR HMS  facebook page or made public comments at recent BOE meetings, are HMS parents and supporters who have praised Dr. White for his efforts in getting the new school built.

But isn't this a district of 9 schools, not just one?  For the last 3 1/2 years on White's watch, the BOE has been waiting patiently for the administration to present a Facilities Master Plan for its approval, a plan that would outline and cost out in great detail, the projected capital improvements and needs of all 9 schools over a ten year period.  Time and again, the BOE has asked when the Facilities Master Plan would be presented for approval. Time and again, the administration has claimed it was coming. In fact, let's not forget that the administration actually misrepresented that a plan was already in place in its HMS referendum materials mailed out to the community. Back on March 13, 2016, we reported how an HMS referendum mailer (paid for with taxpayer dollars) represented that a Facilities Master Plan had been worked on for more than 2 years, when in fact, that was not the case.  Read our blog post at 3/16/2016 Post to remind yourselves of the administration's representations about the Facilities Master Plan.

Twenty months later, there is still NO FACILITIES MASTER PLAN -- which means that Dr. White failed to meet one of his most important contractually REQUIRED goals -- that a plan be  in place by November 1, 2014.  (See Section 3 in White's First Contract)  This of course means that Dr. White failed to meet a required goal prior to the BOE extending his first contract in December 2016, a failure that one board member believed prohibited the BOE from approving an extension of his contract.   Eleven months after his contract was extended by a BOE majority, and one full year after the missed contractually required deadline to have a Facilities Master Plan in place, NO PLAN HAS EVEN BEEN PRESENTED TO THE BOE FOR APPROVAL.

Instead, what we now know is that not ony has no plan been presented or approved, the immediate needs of the other 8 schools besides HMS have been neglected and only now, after the former Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Finance resigned and was replaced, is the administration telling the BOE the HARSH REALITIES of what the other 8 schools need and will cost. 

Tomorrow, Monday, November 13, the BOE will hold its monthly business meeting. Agenda Item 7D is called FY19 Capital Projects Discussion.   There are 2 relevant documents on Boarddocs that we suggest you all all read.  The first is a Memo that states:

"Background and Information:
The "Capital Projects Long-Term Planning Estimates" document posted on BoardDocs was prepared in response to Board requests for a multi-year outline of capital project needs to inform discussion on the tax levy. It was developed by the Building and Grounds Department in conjunction with District Architect Healy Bender by utilizing the Facilities Condition Assessment Report prepared by Wight & Co. Architects in 2015, as well as a prioritization scale to weight the timing of projects by necessity. The Board Facilities Committee has not yet reviewed this information, therefore it should be considered a preliminary document for initial discussion purposes only. This information ultimately needs to be included as part of ongoing Facilities Master Plan development."  (Source:  11/13/17 Memo.)

You will note the language we have highlighted in red, which indicates that information presented in the second document titled Capital Projects Long-Term Planning Estimates "will ultimately need to be included as part of the ongoing Facilities Master Plan development."

In other words, these estimates have not previously been included AND obviously the promised and much delayed Facilities Master Plan is still in development.  But the real problem with the delay in presenting this information to the BOE is that the information reveals a projected cost of more than $2 million per year to pay for needed captial projectsover the next ten years.  Anyone who has been following the finance discussions at BOE meetings over the last couple of months knows that during White's watch, the administration only budgeted $500,000 per year for capital needs.   And as the new Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recently told the BOE, it will be facing a mulit-million dollar deficit if it decides to fund the needed improvements UNLESS cuts to the budget are made.

The document Capital Projects Long-Term Planning Estimates on board docs reveals the following projected capital needs costs over the next 9 fiscal years (which start on July 1, 2018):

2019  $1,965,000
2020  $2,079,000
2021  $2,203,500
2022  $2,269,500
2023  $2,146,250
2024  $2,409,375
2025  $2,122,250
2026  $2,237,750
2027  $2,017,375

These projected capital projects for the 8 other D181 schools total $19,450,000.

So, in order to fund the needed projections at all the other D181 schools besides HMS, the district will have to find ways to cut millions of dollars out of the budget over the next 9 years.  You can see this for yourselvest the immediate impact of the capital needs on the budget in the Tax Levy documentation posted on Boarddocs for tomorrow's  meeting.  The Tax Levy Memo shows a projected deficit for FY2019 of $1,355,994 should the 2019 capital needs be included in the budget.  


All the BOE critics need to face that reality and start paying attention to how the administration under White's watch (for the next 7 1/2 months) will address this fiscal reality, if at all.

Why weren't these numbers presented to the BOE by November 1, 2014, the date the Facilities Master Plan was supposed to be in place per White's contract?  In our opinion, the fact that these numbers are being presented to the BOE for the first time, nearly one year after the last BOE majority extended his contract, is an absolute disgrace.

Will non-HMS parents be as forgiving as they were of White's "mistake" when they realize how their schools' needs have been ignored and not budgeted for by the current administration?  And what excuses will the VOTE YES supporters make this time to justify this failure?

Let's hope the BOE takes these projections seriously and immediately begins the hard work of figuring out how to fund the needed capital improvements without negatively impacting our children's educational experiences.  While non of us like our taxes to increase, this is not a year when the BOE should underlevy for next year's taxes? Will the BOE do the right thing and levy to the max this year? Will any of the BOE members ignore the fiscal realities?

Stay tuned, and as always, SOUND OFF!

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Public Attacks on Board Members Who Voted to Approve White's Mutual Termination Agreement are Not Based on Facts.

According to the Mutual Termination Don White signed on October 30, 2017, he had 7 days to revoke his agreement, otherwise on the 8th day, the agreement became effective.  (See Section 12b of the  Mutual Termination Agreement.)

The seven days have expired and since the BOE has not announced any revocation of the agreement, we believe that it is now final and White's last day as superintendent will be on June 30, 2018.  During the wait and see period, we decided to stay silent, but others in the community did not. Starting with public comments made at the 10/30 board meeting and continuing in the Hinsdalean's editorial and in Facebook posts and comments, there has been a rash of harsh crticism leveled at the four board members who voted to approve the Mutual Termination agreement

Now it is time to put some of those criticisms to bed.  We begin with a comment submitted today by one of our readers that we think is a fair response to the criticisms and veiled threats made against the board members by certain community members.

Anonymous said...(Emphasis added by us.)
I just listened to the public comments from the beginning of last weeks meeting and am stunned. One person stated that the boards' actions regarding Dr. White would come at "costs to their personal reputations." Easy there, Godfather. Jump to 4:03:35 to hear the public comments yourself. In my personal opinion that comment seemed to be a thinly veiled threat to board members who supported White's departure. Threats like this are dangerous because they weaken the basic tenets of democracy and local governance in this country. While what this person said may have just been a slip of the tongue, nonetheless, it should be addressed by the board and the superintendent. School board members who work tirelessly reviewing years of evidence in order to reach difficult decisions should be commended, not threatened. While I have not always agreed with school board members I feel the words and the tone expressed by some of speakers last week lacked thoughtful objectivity and sensitivity. If the decision truly was mutual between the board and Dr. White, then both sides need to come together and publicly set the record straight for those who are still confused why the decision was mutual. As a D181 and D86 parent myself, I want to make it clear that the people who spoke in support of Dr. White last week in no way represent the views of my acquaintances, my neighbors, or me. I feel this mutual separation was long overdue.

Anyone who listens to or attends the curriculum meetings knows that Dr. White had nothing to do with "re-vamping" the curriculum. After he allowed Dr. Kurt Schneider and friends to make years of horrible curricular decisions based on social agendas rather than on scientific evidence, Mrs. Gallt and the parent volunteers on the curriculum committee came in and FIXED the mess. Anyone who listened to the meetings heard how hard she worked to peacefully correct the years of errors and poor decisions approved by previous board and administrators. The fact that she left speaks volumes about her boss. For people to perpetuate the myth that Dr. White is leaving due to a simple clerical error from a county clerk is absolutely ridiculous! Seriously? If anyone really believes this ALONE was the sole reason for the mutual separation, you are being naive.

The only people with full access to the whole story are the current board members and the district's attorneys. Anything anyone else thinks is conjecture. Remember, the decision was made based on information that will NEVER be made available to the public due to mutual agreement of both parties. There is no transparency in confidential settlement agreements made by school districts and their lawyers. Only Dr. White and a handful of others will ever know the truth. The accountability committee based their decisions on confidential documents, contracts, and discussions that took time away from their own families and professions. While some board members may not have grasped, or even read the important details, I have faith that the majority of the group made an excellent, thoughtful decision in the best interest of our children and taxpayers. I thank this group of board members for courageously standing up for the interests of our children and this community.
November 8, 2017 at 2:40 PM
The Reason for the BOE's Silence on All the Reasons Behind the Mutual Termination Agreement

We agree with the information provided by the commentor, and in particular their statement that "there is no transparency in confidential settlement agreements."  Although this blog is all about transparency, we recognize that in personnel matters, especially as sensitive as mutual agreements to end a relationship with a superintendent, the employee -- in this case White -- has a right to expect that board members respect the sanctity of the executive session and his right to privacy in personnel matters.   While the community can run wild with speculation about all the reasons why HE and the BOE agreed to part ways, WE WILL NEVER KNOW the full rationale or reasons behind their mutual decision.  White has a privacy right that the BOE should nott violate.  It is therefore disturbing that at least one "male" board member has selectively chosen to violate executive session confidentiality when he felt it would help White, essentially disrespecting his fellow board members who ALL are required to remain silent.

In addition, a close read of Section 8 of the Mutual Agreement reveals a MUTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT provision.  It states:

"The Parties agree they will not make any statement to any third party that either party could reasonably foresee would cause harm to the personal or professional reputation of the other Party."

Both Parties (White and the BOE) agreed that "to the fullest extent permitted by law [they] will not make or cause to be made any statements that are calculated or likely to have the effect of disparaging, damaging or otherwise reflecting negatively on the reputation of [the other Party]."
(Source:  Section 8 of the Mutual Termination Agreement.)

Section 8 goes on to state that White and the BOE's comments on the Mutual Termination Agreement  are RESTRICTED to the Press Release Board President Burns read during the October 30 meeting (Exhibit B to the Mutual Agreement) and a Letter of Recommenation the BOE is providing White (Exhibit A to the Mutual Agreement).

So what does this all mean?  This means that the BOE CANNOT respond to the public lashing it has  has been subjected to by the Hinsdalean, in public comments made by angry D181 residents and former Board Members and posts and comments that the VOTE YES FOR HMS group has been publishing on Facebook.  They are unable to defend or explain their reason AND White's reasons for agreeing to end his relationship with D181 effective June 30, 2018.

Bloggers' Response to the Criticism of the Board Majority

But just as certain community members have seen fit to publicly attack the Board's decision and make veiled threats to their personal reputation, we will now publicly state that not only do we support the Board's majority vote to approve the Mutual Termination Agreement, we are confident that there were good reasons why the board sought to end its relationship with White and contrary to what some community members have alleged, there was no vendetta against White or an unfair decision based upon a simple clerical mistake he made.

To begin,  whether people like it or not, Don White AGREED to leave D181 and his job as superintendent.  Anyone with common sense should conclude from the fact that BOTH the BOE and White agreed not to disparage each other -- or say anything that might reflect negatively on each other's reputation --  that there are things Dr. White does not want made public.

If the ONLY reason White agreed to leave D181 is because of a clerical mistake the BOE is upset about, it is doubtful that he would have agreed to go silent, since his mistake and refusal to inform the BOE was already in the public domain.   What is not known because the board has been silenced by the anti-disparagement clause in the Mutual Termination Agreement are any other reasons it may have had to supported ending the relationship with Dr. White.

But perhaps, we can begin to figure out what those reasons are.

A. Validity of White's Contract Extension Questionable.

Less than one year ago, it became apparent that problems existed under White's leadership that had nothing to do with a clerical mistake.  Back on December 12, 2016, Dr. White's original 3 year contract was renewed EARLY, extended by an ADDITIONAL 3 years and then BACKDATED to June 30, 2016, one full year before it was set to expire.

This is essence gave him a new 4 year contract, something that was UNPRECEDENTED in recent D181 history.  We have dug back into the D181 archives of publicly available documents and found NO OTHER such backdated contract renewal and extension given to past superintendents.  All other superintendents who have been around long enough to have their contracts extended, simply had them renewed for ADDITIONAL time effective the day AFTER their first contracts were set to expire.

One must therefor ask, WHY DID THE MAJORITY of the LAST BOE take this unprecendented step, especially since it WAS NOT SUPPORTED by all the BOE members?

The minutes of the 12/12/16 BOE meeting reveal that one board member, Leslie Gray, opposed the contract extension.  She stated that the proposed extension did not comply with the Illinois School Code requiring that White meet all of his performance goals as listed in his first contract.  She also stated concerns with the length of the extension, backdating of the second contract, inclusion of post-retirment benefits and removal of a provision that would have allowed the BOE to terminate his contract without cause.  (Source:  12/12/16 BOE Meeting Minutes)

The minutes further reflect that then BOE President Garg made a point of stating that the board has consulted with legal counsel who had opined that although the BOE could determine that White had not met specific goals, it could find that he had made adequate progress and thus meet the Illinois School Code requirements allowing for a contract extension.

Ultimately five board members -- Garg, Giltner, Clarin, Vorobiev and Turek -- voted to extend White's contract.  Burns voted Present and Gray voted NAY.  Just as the vote to approve the Mutual Termination Agreement was not unanimous, neither was the vote to approve White's contract extension.  We find it fascinating that commuinity members who have been quick to criticize the BOE's non-unanimous vote to approve the Mutual Termination agreement had absolutely no concerns when the vote was not unamimous to approve White's second contract.  Why wasn't anyone concerned then at the lack of unanimity? More importantly, should they have been?

We believe the answer is yes, they should have been very concerned.

What does the Illinois School Code actually state regarding whether White's contract should have been extended in the first place?  It states that (emphasis added):

(105 ILCS 5/10-23.8a) (from Ch. 122, par. 10-23.8a) 
    Sec. 10-23.8a. Principal, assistant principal, and other administrator contracts. After the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1997 and the expiration of contracts in effect on the effective date of this amendatory Act, school districts may only employ principals, assistant principals, and other school administrators under either a contract for a period not to exceed one year or a performance-based contract for a period not to exceed 5 years, unless the provisions of Section 10-23.8b of this Code or subsection (e) of Section 24A-15 of this Code otherwise apply. 
    Performance-based contracts shall be linked to student performance and academic improvement attributable to the responsibilities and duties of the principal, assistant principal, or administrator. No performance-based contract shall be extended or rolled-over prior to its scheduled expiration unless all the performance and improvement goals contained in the contract have been met. Each performance-based contract shall include the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement determined and used by the local school board to measure the performance and effectiveness of the principal, assistant principal, or other administrator and such other information as the local school board may determine. 
    By accepting the terms of a multi-year contract, the principal, assistant principal, or administrator waives all rights granted him or her under Sections 24-11 through 24-16 of this Act only for the term of the multi-year contract. Upon acceptance of a multi-year contract, the principal, assistant principal, or administrator shall not lose any previously acquired tenure credit with the district. 
(Source: P.A. 97-217, eff. 7-28-11.)

(Source:  Illinois School Code Section on Multi-year Administrative Contracts)

The section of the Illinois School Code that the BOE was required to apply in order to extend White's contract AND extend it prior to iit's June 30, 2016 expiration date REQUIRED that "ALL PERFORMANCE AND IMPROVEMENT GOALS CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT HAVE BEEN MET.

This school code DOES NOT allow an early extension if a board of education finds, as Garg stated publicly, that White had made "adequate progress."  If the same attorneys that kept information from the BOE regarding White's "clerical mistake" are the same ones that opined that adequate progress was all that was required, then perhaps they were WRONG, gave the board BAD legal counsel and this is yet another reason why the BOE is now in the process of replacing them.

In addition to reviewing what the school code actually requires, we have also gone back and looked at White's first multi-year contract. It can be accessed at the following link: White's First Contract.  Section 3 of the contract spelled out in detail the performance goals that he was required to accomplish in order for to have his contract renewed.  After reading the list, we are shocked that 5 board members  concluded that White had made adequate progress at all  since what is clear as a bell is that White failed to meet some very significant goals, let alone ALL of them as required by the Illinois School Code.

While we will not go into detail on all of the goals, everyone in the community knows that as of 12/12/16:

No Master Facility Plan was approved as required.
Student Achievement had not improve as required.
Not only was the Learning for All Plan not "aligned" to the District's philosophy, it had been eradicated.
Five year budgets were not implemented as required.

All of these "performance goals" were White's responsibility to achieve BEFORE his contract could be extended.  Yet the BOE majority ignored the School Code requirements, choosing to rely instead on advice of counsel to allow them to extend and backdate his contract without his having met the goals.

HOW IS THAT APPROPRIATE or in the best interest of the district?

B. Timing of Contract Extension Questionable.

Of equal interest is the timing of the contract extension.   It was approved the same month that the HMS referendum publication error came to light.   When the publication error was first discussed by the BOE, all the focus was on the Dupage County Election Commission as being responsible for the error.  White made no acknolwedgment that he had made a "mistake" in not following counsel's checklist, a mistake which could have prevented the Election Commission from publishing the HMS referendum  notice too early.  Rather than disclose his mistake to the BOE,  White remained silent all the while that the BOE was deciding whether to approve an early, backdated 4 year extension to his contract.

We don't know about you, but we are deeply disturbed by the TIMING of White's contract extension. We are deeply disturbed that no one in the community cried foul when a board member asserted that the contract extension was not in compliance with the Illinois School Code.  We are deeply concerned that past board members who voted to extend the contract under such questionable circumstances have now been publicly critical of the current board's decision.

It's time for the Community to Wise Up!

We urge community members who have dumbed down the Board's decision to part ways with White as a vendetta by certain board members and an inappropriate reaction to a clerical mistake, to WISE UP and start following more in the district than just the construction of a new HMS.

If you do, you may be shocked to learn that ON WHITE'S WATCH the district is now facing a multi-million dollar deficit due to POOR PLANNING and LACK OF BUDGETING funds to pay for capital improvements that are NEEDED at the 8 other schools.  The HMS fiasco started with  a leaky roof, and yet 2 roof at other schools -- the Lane and Elm -- now both need new roofs that will cost over $1 million and there is no money in the district's budget to pay for them.

But don't believe us.  Go back and listen to the podcasts of the recent Facilities and Finance Committee meetings, as well as the financial presentations at the last two regular board meetings.  The BOE will now face the daunting task of figuring out how to balance the budget and pay for needed capital improvements.  Unfotunately, this will likely require CUTS in the budget.

So what will be on the chopping block?

Teachers? (Which could lead to increased class sizes.)
Teacher's Salaries?  (Will they agree to salary reductions or salary freezes in their upcoming contract negotiations?)
Classroom supplies?
Overpaid administrative staff?

White may be leaving next June, but the financial problems will not be leaving with him.  The next superintendent will face a big fat financial mess that he/she will have to work with the BOE on without negatively impacting our students.

So was a clerical mistake really all that was behind the Mutual Termination Agreement?  We think not.  What do you think?


Thursday, November 2, 2017

Revolving Door Argument Rebuttals

Since Monday's BOE vote to approve the Mutual Termination with Don White,  we have followed social media criticisms of the board's decision, asserting that his departure is the latest in a series of unnecessary revolving door departures and that the 4 board members who voted to approve the agreement have a vendetta against him. 
2 - Good leaders don't lie - by omission or commission - to their superiors or their employees. The publication error wasn't simply a clerical thing. Not only did it take taxpayer dollars out of the schools to pay for legal fees, Dr. White lied about it when directly asked.

3 - Good leaders know they are ultimately responsible for all actions of their employees. Maybe a staff member should have caught the error, but ultimately Dr. White was responsible. He was negligent in not making sure appropriate procedures were set up so the error didn't happen. This District ran six referendum prior to this one - publication dates were never blown.

4 - Good leaders rise to the challenge. D181 is at the top of the food chain for salaries to administrators as well as many other tangible and intangible job perks. Superintendent talent is not going to avoid accepting a job here for fear of being fired. Good leaders will rise to the challenge. I hope the BOE does its due diligence well and finds a leader who knows how to lead.

October 31, 2017
Anonymous said...
Response to the 12:16 comment:
Are you kidding me? This board was "punitive" and "short sighted?" No way.
I commend this board for finally doing what should have been done last year: giving White his walking papers. A contract extension that was issued by the previous board is the last thing that should have happened based on the state of the district and the fact that several key administrators left because they weren't supported by White. We all know this, so get your head out of the sand.
Have you forgotten White gave Kurt Schneider (his favorite suck up) a promotion to oversee the learning department and the curriculum for the entire district? I haven't. I'm still working on cleaning up that mess with my kids and the holes they have in their math instruction. 
So you'll excuse those of us who think the district will be better off without White in charge. My praise and accolades are for the 4 board members who took appropriate action.
District 181 needs real leadership, not a seat warmer.

October 31, 2017

Old Person said...
I am a 25 year resident of HInsdale and my 3 children went through D181 and D86. I am dismayed at the vitriol playing out on Facebook against the BOE for approving the Mutual Agreement with Dr. White. Do these people read the papers? Do they attend board meetings or listen to them? If so, how many? Have they bothered to follow the issues that this board has been dealing with? As an elderly resident/parent who has watched the departure of 4, soon to be 5, superintendents over the last 12 years -- Mary Curley, Jim Tenbusch, Bob Sabatino, Renee Schuster and soon to be Don White -- I can say that with the exception of Dr. Curley and Dr. Sabatino, the BOE's made the right decisions. Dr. Curley was driven out after 7 years of hard work filled with accomplishments in which multiple referenda were passed, new schools built, old schools renovated, gifted programs implemented at the middle schools and just when she was settling in to focus on broader curriculum improvements, the SPED heavy BOE drove her out. Next came Dr. Tenbusch, who was hired because of his tech and sped background. He left just shy of one year into a 3 year contract. Just google his name and you will see that trouble followed his departure from D181. Parents who attended an HMS meeting at which parents' concerns about a student's "hit list" were addressed by him, will recall the inappropriate statements he made during the meeting, shortly after which he announced his resignation. Certainly not the BOE's fault. Next came Dr. Sabatino, who was hired on an interim basis, since he was a retired superintendent. He was fabulous and kept the district afloat while decisions were made about who to hire on a permanent basis. Certainly not the BOE's fault that he couln't work full time or stay indefinitely. Next came Dr. Schuster and the HMS mess, including her comment about there not being any mold at HMS or she would have smelled it. That's a comment that a teacher brought to the BOE's attention at a public board meeting, shortly after which the building was shown to be over 70% infested with mold requiring the closure of the building and millions spent on remediation work. And then within one month of the reopening of HMS, she announced her resignation which was announced as a mutual agreement so she didn't have to pay $20,000 to the BOE as required under her contract, so she could move back to St. Louis and take care of her elderly parents. Seems likely that in Tenbush and Schuster's cases, the public announcements didn't really tell the full truth of the circumstances behind the BOE's accepting their resignations, but the bottom line is that the district was better off with the departure of these leaders.
Now the BOE has announced yet another mutual agreement to end a superintendent relationship -- White's. There has been alot of vitriol spewed on facebook and on the streets of Hinsdale since Monday about how the BOE has a vendetta against him and it was unfair to terminate him for making a clerical mistake regarding the publication of the HMS referendum notice. I just shake my old head when I hear this because people are pretty naive if they think that anyone would fire a superintendent over a clerical mistake. Shortly after reading the news coverage on the accountability committee's report, I went to the D181 website and plowed through all the material that is posted. I then listened to podcasts of the committee meetings and discussions the full board had. I have the time, since I am retired and my kids are grown and flown. I have to say, that I was really disappointed to learn that Dr. White didn't just make a mistake, but he never told the board about it. Why didn't he? Everyone in town has been up in arms over the lawsuit that followed the mistake, but people seem to overlook that the district's bond lawyers refused to sell the HMS bonds after the mistake was discovered and long before a lawsuit was filed, because the legality of the election results were questionable. In fact, the board had to have its lawyers seek something called curative legislation to declare the election results valid. And did Dr. White tell the BOE about his mistake at any point during this whole mess? No he didn't. His silence was the same as lying. Covering up facts is the same as lying. Silence is the same as lying. So do I blame the board for not trusting him? No I don't. And I am sure that there is much more going on that this lie, since lots of my young neighbors have complained to me for years about the curriculum mess that continued under his leadership. So, no, I don't blame the board for doing their job. It is a tough job. A thankless job. A volunteer job. I thank them for doing what they concluded was the right thing for the district. And I thank Dr. White for agreeing to leave. Plus he is getting paid a bonus for agreeing to leave. Not what I would have included in his agreement, but if it was needed to allow the district to move forward, then so be it. 
The phrase revolving door has been used to describe what's happened in D181. I challenge people to explain why Tenbusch, Schuster or White should have stayed and how that would have actually been good for the district. November 2, 2017

As always, SOUND OFF!