District 74 Responds to Resident's Open Letter

Editor's note: A recent open letter sent by Lincolnwood residents has sparked widespread turmoil between the community and School District 74.

On Jan. 12, $600 dinners, trips to Disney Land and even personal auto repairs paid for with taxpayer money.

The school district responded with its own open letter — 17-pages total — to Lincolnwood residents. The following is a response by District 74's school board and not Skokie Patch.

Update- The school board held an "emergency meeting" in the basement of Lincoln Hall on Saturday morning, Jan. 21. During that meeting, school board officials extended superintendent Mark Klaisner's contract through 2013, despite pleas to have him removed by Lincolnwood residents. Patch will be posting an update to that story early next week.

Follow us on Facebook for updates and breaking news.

To read the resident's open letter, click on the PDF image to the right of this article.

                                                         ***

(The plain text is copy from the resident's open letter. Anything in Italics is a response by the school board.)

January 8, 2012

Open Letter to the School Board:

When we started building our teams and set our goals, we frequently spoke about being a “lighthouse” district (innovative and forward thinking) and to establish ourselves in Illinois, the United States, and globally. Acting on the direction of the Board of Education, the administration was authorized to focus and develop a 21st century global curriculum establishing SD74 as a leader in the education community.

Board Members and fellow Residents of Lincolnwood:

A group of residents of our community became very concerned about the alarming trend of spending and taxing by the Lincolnwood School District. Accordingly, we made requests under the Freedom of Information Act for information and documentation regarding spending.  Although much of the information we sought has not been provided, we did receive the 2010 and 2011 (through October 20) credit card statements that are billed to the School District. In all, there appear to be seven credit cards belonging to and paid for by the School District.  Superintendent Klaisner, Assistant Superintendent Brandt, and Assistant Superintendent Nohelty each have their own credit card.  In addition there are four other credit cards that are termed “Board Member” cards 1 through 4, which appear to be used not only by Board Members, but are also used by administrators and teachers.

The established practice for p-card (procurement card) usage has been to assign a p-card to a board member just before travel was to commence. Board members do not have their own credit card but are assigned a p-card by the business office prior to their departure.

A preliminary review of the credit card statements, done with some difficulty because receipts are often missing or not sufficiently explained, has raised many serious and disturbing questions about the nature and degree of spending as well as about School Board policies.  The following are only some of the questions and issues for which we believe the Lincolnwood community deserves explanations.

The first set of questions concern the District paying for various expenses for Superintendent Klaisner’s car.  After reviewing Superintendent Klaisner’s very generous employment contract, it seems clear that nothing in it provides for the payment of all his gasoline expenses.  Nevertheless, the superintendent has continually used the District’s credit card for seemingly all of his gas purchases.  In 2010 he charged $2,043.11 to the District.  In 2011, through October 20, he charged $2,124.14.  This is a total of $4,167.25.  Was there an existing written addendum to his contract that the administration failed to provide to us to justify these charges?   If not, it must be asked for how may years prior to 2010 has he wrongfully been charging the District for his gas.  Has or will the Board demand repayment of these expenses to the School District.

As has been the past practice of SD74, our superintendents have received full compensation for the use of their vehicles, including lease payments, maintenance, gas and insurance. Since Dr. Klaisner has been the Superintendent, the car and all expenses associated with it were considered part of the compensation package. When Dr. Klaisner took the position and signed the contract, the business manager explained that all costs were included – car, maintenance, gas, and insurance.

The Superintendent is seen as a 24/7/365 employee (always on call), therefore items like car and phone were provided to him. The exchange was the expectation that the Superintendent would be available at all times.

Another issue concerning Superintendent Klaisner’s car is a credit card charge to the District on November 26, 2010.  It is in the amount of $1,968.97 for body work on his 2011 Cadillac CTS.  It is for repair of rear collision damage.  It should be noted that per the Superintendent’s employment contract, the District furnishes him “with an automobile of his and the District’s choice” and pays for his insurance.  There are several questions regarding this charge. Is the District responsible for his accident?  Did he submit the bill to his insurance carrier?  Did he reimburse the district? Did he receive insurance reimbursement?

The accident in question included rear end damage while parked unoccupied in a parking lot. The motorist who caused the accident did not leave any contact information. As a result of the vehicle accident and the damages falling below the insurance deductible, the business office directed Dr. Klaisner to expense the repairs.  As the maintenance and repairs fall under the Superintendent’s contract, it was deemed appropriate to use the p-card to pay for the expense. Furthermore the accident and repair cost were discussed with the insurance company. Moreover, no insurance reimbursement was received by Dr. Klaisner or the District.  

Superintendent Klaisner’s employment contract calls for the District to provide him with a car that the District also approves of.  He chose a 2011 Cadillac CTS which we believe has a sticker price of around $45,000.  Did Superintendent Klaisner in fact get the approval of the Board before he entered into the lease contract for his car?

The car has a three-year lease. When Dr. Klaisner became Superintendent, Mr. Scott Jackson (then Business Manager) and Dr. Klaisner decided to find something less expensive than the previous Superintendent’s vehicle. They looked at a Chrysler.  Mr. Jackson found that the Cadillac CTS had a cheaper lease than the Chrysler so he recommended the cheaper vehicle, which was also about $40/mo cheaper than the previous Superintendent. At the end of the first three-year lease contract, Dr. Nohelty and Dr. Klaisner chose another CTS to continue with the same type of vehicle.

The business office contacted several dealerships, which included local businesses. Unfortunately, the most advantageous deal was obtained outside the local community. Both Dr. Klaisner and Dr. Nohelty felt it was important to seek the best price to effectively manage District expenses.

Dr. Klaisner’s contract states “The Board shall furnish the Superintendent with an automobile of his and the District’s choice for his personal and business use which the district will lease on a 3-year basis and pay the insurance and other reasonable maintenance expenses related to use of vehicle in accordance with Board policy.” The Board has been aware of automobile choice since June 30, 2007.

Superintendent Klaisner’s cell phone charges also require an explanation.  His employment contract provides for the District to provide him with “a cellular telephone.”  The bills Superintendent Klaisner has constantly charged to the district seem excessive for one phone.  His average monthly bill is approximately $177 a month.  The details of his cell phone plan were not given. Has the Board verified that these charges are reasonable and for one phone?

The District pays, on his behalf, only the usage fees, including unlimited minutes, text and data support. The monthly fee covers one device, that of Dr. Klaisner. Furthermore, it is the expectation of the Board of Education and the employees of the District that Dr. Klaisner is available 24/7/365 (always on call). Thus his entire device usage is covered, not a fraction.

The Board is also asked to review the very large and questionable spending on conferences, retreats, and other events in 2010 and 2011.  In 2010 the administration apparently authorized at least 15 conferences or events, the credit card charges for which totaled $40,979.  The approval of some of these charges is quite disturbing.  A large sum is spent on hotel rooms in downtown Chicago, even though Lincolnwood is only 10 to 12 miles away.  For one conference held in Chicago in April 2010, credit card charges alone totaled $6,652.55. 

The Board of Education, District administrators and employees attended multiple conferences in 2010 and 2011. The Board of Education supports and advocates continual professional development for itself and District employees. Our participation in these conferences allows the District to support and develop its purpose, its programs and its operations to better serve our students. Furthermore, as a result of nurturing our employees to provide unique learning opportunities to support core standards and problem-based learning, the Board of Education supported the trips to NASA and the International Plastics Conference. In both cases, our students and educators were recognized for their participation and in-person, received awards and peer recognition for their outstanding work. (Learn more about our educator and student accomplishments on the District website at http://www.sd74.org)

As part of the Board of Education’s ongoing development and dialogue with school districts within Illinois and the United States, the Board actively attends IASB (Illinois Association of School Boards) and NSBA (National School Board Association) conferences. Furthermore, our Board is encouraged to seek Master Board Member status; again fostering the importance of development and education. From time to time, conferences are held locally, due to the demanding conference schedules (early morning to late evening) and the Board of Education’s and administration’s desire to maximize their participation and learning, they choose to stay near the conference, resulting in local hotel accommodations. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

There are two restaurant receipts for this conference on consecutive nights of $1,056.40 and $1,443.17.  It is disturbing that there was not proper documentation for these and many other charges.  Did the administration seek reimbursement, and was any reimbursement made? 

The expenses presented each represent a single restaurant bill for a large group of individuals. It is our standard practice to have one person pay for meals versus each individual expensing. Board members have a history of documenting expenses and of voluntarily reimbursing the district for expenditures that involve spouses and/or guests. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

Another Chicago conference was held in November 2010.  The credit card costs alone came to $4,829.09.  Again, hotel expenses in Chicago were extensive.

As part of the Board of Education’s ongoing development with school districts within Illinois, the Board actively attends the annual Triple-I Conference. Our Board is encouraged to seek Master Board Member status, again fostering the importance of development and education. This conference is held in Chicago. Because of the demanding conference schedules (early morning to late evening)  and hotel reservations made through conference discounts and the Board of Education’s and administration’s desire to maximize their participation, they choose to stay near where the conference is held. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

In April 2010 it appears Superintendent Klaisner attended a program in Washington, D.C.  We believe it was the “People to People Ambassadors’ Program” and the cost to the District was $6,673.40.  We ask the Board to determine if this is accurate and if the cost can be justified. 

Dr. Klaisner was asked by AASA (American Association of School Administrators) to serve as an Educational Ambassador and attend a trip to South Africa. Besides the honor, Dr. Klaisner’s trip participation and responsibility aligned with the District’s commitment to foster global connections and understandings. Dr. Klaisner was unable to attend the program. In cases where professional development opportunities are canceled, every attempt is made to reallocate and/or seek refunds for prepaid expenses.

There were many out of state trips taken in 2010 at the District’s expense.  They include two separate conferences in Disney World, Florida, the Washington, D.C. trip mentioned above, and conferences in Camden, Maine; Anaheim, California; and Phoenix, Arizona. 

Trip Location

Trip Date

Trip Purpose

Trip Attendees

Orlando, FL

Spring 2011

Space Shuttle Launch

Dr. Klaisner

Two students and families

One Teacher

Two Board Members

Washington DC

Canceled

AASA Invitational:

First leg of trip as Educational Ambassador to South Africa

Dr. Klaisner

Orlando, FL (Disney World)

Fall 2010

ASBO International Annual Conference

Dr. Nohelty

Camden, ME

Fall 2010

To bring the “Daily 5” reading program to Rutledge Hall

Two Teachers

Phoenix, AZ

Fall 2010

T + L Conference (NSBA)

Tech team conducted a workshop on Drupal

Three Staff Members

One Board Member

Dr. Klaisner

Dr. Brandt

Anaheim, CA

Spring 2011

International Plastics Summit (Student Awards)

Four students and family members

One Teacher

Two Board Members

Orlando, FL (Disney World)

Spring 2010

National Institute of Legal Issues of Educating Individuals with Disabilities

One Staff Member

Also of note in 2010 is a retreat for administrators in Starved Rock, Illinois.  The credit card charges for the retreat totaled $4,439.03.

We held a 3-day event in Starved Rock with the entire administrative team for the purpose of planning, developing and implementing District goals and advancing our District. The administrative team feels it is essential we meet to continue to foster and build a team, in a place where we can focus on the District without day-to-day business and personal interruptions. We are very proud of the work accomplished during our sessions. This time is important in leading a $25M organization.

As large as these expenses were, 2010 is overshadowed by the nature and magnitude of the spending for the first nine and one half months of 2011.  Whereas 2010 included expenses for travel, food and lodging for administrators, board members, and teachers, 2011 appears to have expanded the list to include expenses for some spouses of board members, students, and family members of students. The type of charges for many of the airfares as well as the type of charges for ground transportation also appears to have increased.

Some of the Administration’s decisions that we ask the Board to review involve several trips in 2011.  First, in March of 2011 there was a trip to Long Beach, California.  The only description found for this was “Plastics Summit.”  We believe this trip was attended by two board members, a teacher, at least four students and other adults (presumably family members) accompanying the students.  Would the Board please determine how many people participated, what the total cost to the District was and whether the expenses were justified.  The district credit card charges alone totaled $5,787.03.  

These opportunities are the results of our students competing and being recognized in an international plastics competition.  

• Our students were the only middle school team recognized in this competition; all of the other groups were high school students.

• Two Board members did attend, Mr. Koder and Dr. Davros. The directors of the event recognized the commitment and support of our Board for their attendance.

• We require that our student’s parents attend these trips. Given the relatively young age of these students and to ensure safety and supervision and to recognize the parent partnership in their student’s education; we believe parent attendance is in the best interest of the District.

• The District paid for airfare, food and hotel for the students. Parents had to provide for their own airfare and food but were allowed to share the hotel room with their child.

• The expenses for students, Board members, and the teacher were paid by the District. The costs incurred by spouses, additional parent or sibling were not paid by the District. For simplification, the District often booked and purchased travel arrangements to ensure our group traveled together. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

Another trip is to the Kennedy Space Center via Orlando, Florida in late April of 2011.  We believe that there may have been sixteen or more people on this trip at the District’s expense.  Superintendent Klaisner as well as three Board members and the spouse of one board member attended.  It is not known who the other individuals were.  We ask the Board to determine how many people attended, and what the total cost to the District was.  The credit card charges alone totaled $14,101.70.  Were there any reimbursements to the District?

The trip to the Kennedy Space Center celebrated our 6th grade student’s honor and participation in a competition. His experiment was selected to go up in the STS-134 Space Shuttle. Again, this was an extraordinary award to recognize Lincolnwood School District 74.  In addition, our student was the only middle school student chosen across the country. Also, we chose to include our runner-up student in this event, as we wanted to acknowledge her strong efforts and contribution to the competition as well.

This was a five-day event put on by The National Center for Earth and Space Science Education and NanoRacks, LLC. The students and teachers had opportunities to interact with scientists and even an opportunity to meet astronauts. It included a special tour of the Kennedy Space Center and seminars with leading NASA support organizations and scientists.

The p-card charges are not representative of the costs. What is shown on the billing statement was much more than was actually spent. We paid in advance for parents and other reimbursable expenses so that we could travel together. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

Many of the meals were included in the conference events. The School District funded one meal that included all Lincolnwood event attendees, including the students’ two mentor scientists from Minnesota. Note: the mentor scientists attended the event at their own expense. The district did not cover the mentor scientist’s travel expenses.

There was another airfare charge for Superintendent Klaisner for a round trip flight to Orlando, Florida for April 18 to April 21.  We have no information regarding this trip.  Did the Superintendent squeeze in another trip in between the San Francisco trip of April 11 and the Kennedy Space Center trip on April 28, 2011?  An explanation about this trip and the expenses is required.

Dr. Klaisner was scheduled to attend the original launch time for the shuttle when it was canceled due to weather. Therefore, this trip did not happen. In cases where professional development opportunities are canceled, every attempt is made to reallocate and/or seek refunds for prepaid expenses.

A third trip that requires inquiry is a July 2011 trip to Washington, D.C.  It was attended by Assistant Superintendent Brandt and, we believe, thirteen other people. One dinner receipt indicates that fourteen people dined.  We would ask the Board to determine who attended this trip, what the purpose was, and what the total cost to the District was.

This was a follow-up trip related to the Space Shuttle project. The “Student Spaceflight Experiments” program arranged and convened all the national winners at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. The winners presented their experiments to the general public at a poster session and also made an oral presentation, including a question and answer session to leading aeronautical engineers and scientists. (Click this url to view: http://youtu.be/S2LWPpANhEg). Travel and hotel expenses were paid for the student and district employees. Family members attended at their own cost. Two group dinners were paid for by the District. This was yet another great honor for our student and our District.

There are several expenses related to a San Francisco conference in April 2011 that are extraordinary.  A restaurant bill charged by Superintendent Klaisner, apparently for seven people, totaled $716.04.

District representatives dined together for one meal to debrief conference sessions. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

The Board of Education’s attendance at conferences are opportunities where these volunteers have concentrated times to collaborate and learn about best practice in education. This practice is not uncommon and followed by many school districts.

Another restaurant charge by a board member was for $616.27. The receipt indicates this dinner was for only four guests. Charges to the District’s credit cards for this trip totaled $13,521.18.  The determination by the Board of the total cost for this trip and an explanation would be welcomed.

Our Board has committed itself and individual members have committed to professional growth and development. At this time, SD74 has five Master Board Members. NSBA is a world-class event and has proven to be beneficial. We are proud of our Board for taking their own time to commit to these learning opportunities.

It is common travel practice that Board members or administrators dine together, only one person signs and expenses the meal. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

There was another conference scheduled for November 2011 in downtown Chicago.  All we have are the pre-conference charges of $2,800.00.  The November and December charge card statements have not yet been received. It is known however, that the administration was reserving ten hotel rooms for three nights each.  What were the total expenses for this Chicago conference?

We are gathering and evaluating the expenses for the Triple-I conferences. The receipts are being reviewed and additional reimbursements are being secured where and if appropriate.

The professional growth and networking opportunities actualized by attendance at Triple-I has been demonstrated each year.

Beyond the 2011 events listed above, additional out of state trips include two separate trips to Seattle, Washington; a trip to San Antonio, Texas; an additional trip to Orlando, Florida; and one to Ypsilanti, Michigan.  In 2011 there were at least twenty-one conferences and events through October 20, for which credit card charges to the District totaled $58,214.83.

Trip Location

Trip Date

Trip Purpose

Trip Attendees

Seattle, Washington

Spring 2011

National Conference for Art Teachers—teachers attended as part of their Program Review Cycle

Two Teachers

Seattle, Washington

Fall 2011

ASBO International Annual Conference

Dr. Nohelty

San Antonio, Texas

Spring 2011

Daily 5 Reading Conference- teachers attended to bring program to our primary building

Two Teachers

Orlando, Florida

Canceled

Shuttle postponed

Dr. Klaisner

Ypsilanti, Michigan

Summer 2011

Daily 5 Reading Conference

A Principal

Three Teachers

The charging of breakfasts, lunches, and dinners at local restaurants by the administration must also be examined.  The use of the District credit cards for these meals and for bringing in food is constant and alarming.  In 2010 charges on the District’s cards for local food purchases occurred 92 times for a total of $9,117.23.  In 2011, through October 20, the credit cards were used 69 times.  The total expense was $7,715.47.

There are several considerations to clarify:

• We consider it to be professional operations to provide food at some of these meetings.
  • Teachers must plan to be away from their classrooms and during contractual lunch times.
  • Other groups like secretaries must plan for absence and then make up the work.
  • Often times, group meetings have come in early or given up their contractual lunch or stayed past contractual hours.
  • Additionally, there are many times when refreshments facilitate valuable conversations in a professional setting.
  • These are the operations of a $25M enterprise.
  • We have made it our practice to use local vendors and restaurants, when appropriate, to support our local economy.
  • When we meet with Village officials, the Lincolnwood Public Library staff, the Chamber of Commerce or other local groups, we try to use local businesses to benefit our Lincolnwood community.

Finally, with regard to the employment of Superintendent Klaisner, it is noted that his employment contract ends on June 30, 2012.  The written evaluation of his performance is due by March 1.   We strongly urge the Board to exercise its fiduciary duty to the District and to the residents of Lincolnwood in conducting a thorough and complete evaluation of Superintendent Klaisner’s performance.

The Board has a history of meeting this guideline and our professional dialogue has been constructive.

We have raised many issues that require careful examination.  In addition to these issues the Board should also consider several other matters.

The expenditures in question are common operating expenditures in order to achieve/actualize our District’s “lighthouse” initiatives and foster a 21st century learning environment.  Our practices focus on developing a changing and advancing organization and acknowledging the accomplishments of these efforts for which we are so proud.

Did he serve the Board and the community professionally and in a fiscally responsible manner in the financing and renovation of the Administration building? 

Yes, the Board and the administration moved ahead together as we made difficult decisions. We took a great deal of time and consideration as we moved forward.

With regard to the Lincoln Hall issue, did he serve the Board or the community well?  Did he get competent professional help from bond advisors?   The express language of the contract asks the Board to consider the Superintendent’s working relationship with, among other groups, the faculty and the community.  How was his performance in this area? Did he excel in advancing academic achievement goals for the schools?  In these especially difficult economic times, has he been fiscally responsible?  Does the Board truly have the confidence that this administration is the proper one to professionally handle any project for Lincoln Hall?

We are very proud of our accomplishments and our journey. Less than a year ago the Board and administration agreed and committed to the fact that we were on the right path with the right team in place ready to continue to do tremendous things.

The Board and Superintendent constantly are working together to see that goals and indicators, a required part of the Superintendent’s contract, are regularly scrutinized and that the Superintendent is on target to achieve those goals. The Board also meets annually in evaluation of the Superintendent’s performance.

Again we strongly urge the Board not to extend or renew Superintendent Klaisner’s contract before a thorough and complete evaluation is performed.

[End open letter]

Some additional thoughts:

• We are embracing a new era in education and 21st century learning. In the past, we didn’t have our students competing and winning recognition at the national and international level. That commitment and success requires additional investments. We are celebrating the progress toward achieving our goals of academic advancement and success.

• We have 5 of 7 Board members who have achieved Master Board Member status. They are knowledgeable and are experts in this area. In addition, our Board members are active in our organizations (NTDSE, LICA) and serving as representatives and delegates in our professional organizations. Communities across the area look to Lincolnwood School District 74 as leaders and movers in the area of education.

• We opted not to rent a bus to transport attendees to the State Science Fair in Springfield because of the safety issues related to long trips and young students being out of town overnight. Our winning students still attend this event along with their families. As standard practice, the District pays for our Science teachers to attend as mentors to our students in this competition. The District also funds the students, staff and families to attend the State dinner announcing the winners. This was a student safety issue--not a cost issue.

• In December 2011, the Board approved a tax levy for 4.99% as we and many surrounding districts have done for years. If the tax levy exceeds 105% of the prior years tax extension, a Board is required to hold a Truth in Taxation Hearing. To be transparent, the district has voluntarily held a Truth in Taxation Hearing even though the tax levy request does not exceed 105% of the prior year’s tax extension and therefore is not required by law. Actual tax increases are directly related to the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), not the amount requested in the levy. The final tax extension is determined by Cook County.

• Lincolnwood School District 74 has earned an exceptional Bond rating (AA+) from S & P due to a strong tax base, prudent fiscal policies and efficient management practices.

• The notion that the District is delinquent on the outstanding $7M debt certificates is inaccurate. Since the issuance of the debt certificates in 2009, the District has paid the interest on time.  Currently, the District pays the interest out of the Operating Funds. The current long-term plan is to utilize the District's bonding capacity to convert the $7M Debt Certificates into Bonds and preserve the Operating Fund Reserves. The District has clearly communicated this plan with the bank and both entities are in agreement with the overall plan.

• We have created healthier fund balances and made significant improvements in programs as a way to increase student achievement, advancing district goals, professional development and providing more opportunities for our students.

• As a district, we have outside independent auditors review our fiscal management annually. Our District has earned State recognition for quality fiscal management for the last seven years.

• Procurement cards (p-cards) are not credit cards. These expenditures are accounted for in our budget and strategic planning. We made a “shift” to p-cards to save money and streamline our fiscal operations. We often use them instead of requisitions. It reduces the amount of paperwork, checks and involves a “rebate” component on expenditures.

• The district continues being in the best financial shape it has been for years without a referendum since 2003. That is almost 10 years of fiscal stability without a tax increase. Our track record shows frugality and increased fund balances. We have accomplished so much while building strong fund balances. Again, these are the operations of a $25M enterprise. In fact we have ended in the black, within our budget each of the last eight years.

• The Illinois State Board of Education has awarded School District 74 it’s highest rating of recognition. Please see the School District Financial Profile document at the following link: http://www.sd74.org/home/district74budgetandfinances

• District 74’s independent audit conducted by Miller and Cooper & Co., Ltd. was completed in October for the fiscal year 2011. Andy Mace of Miller and Cooper & Co., Ltd., presented to the Board of Education in November 2011. The Final Audit Report 2011 can be accessed at the following link:  http://www.sd74.org/home/district74budgetandfinances. The reader will find a report of outstanding District 74 finances.