Well you have to admit that none of the fraud would have come to light without a watchdog i e Tom Hayden If the Board and the Administration follow a more honest and truthful path it’s because of one man. Thanks Tom. But it’s a little scary that that’s what is holding them accountable
Agree with this sentiment! Thank you, Tom, for doing the digging. I think it was Mya who, in the meeting, expressed surprise that some of these measures weren't already being taken previously. But at the same time, the way it's framed was still more along the lines of (how did the admin not put this in place), not "oh wow, as a board, we should have been tighter on a lot of this stuff."
While it's refreshing to have Dr. Turner and Ms. Mitchell being proactively transparent and laying out systems of accountability, it's frustrating for the board to hear how these kinds of things weren't in place during their oversight and essentially say" Welp!"
One thing I think about - imagine you get appointed to the Board to a public company, a company with $150 million in annual revenue and about 1000 employees. This would be a medium sized company. You appoint a CEO with two bankruptcies and you don't tell any of the shareholders the process you used to hire that CEO. The CEO lies to your face in order to get capital from the bond markets to do a big building investment but also doesn't build the building. He uses your COVID relief money to give contracts to his friends. He also moonlights with a recruiting firm (with Board OK) and hires away your top employees to a third company. The CEO then bounces to a bigger company, while using the company card to relocate. He then owes you fines related to breaking his contract and uses a subordinate to proxy the (late) payments for him.
And the whole time, you're like "he's our guy!"
Then all of a sudden, when the shit hits the fan, you're like "Oh wow, we didn't have any financial controls? I had no idea!" - the shareholders would sue this board into orbit and YOU, the Board Member could actually go to jail. You'd at least be tied up in litigation for years and it would be misery.
I also think it's worth reminding people that the board members responsible for appointing said CEO brought him in with high pressure/expectations to get said "big building investment" done, to the point where other potential warning signs were overlooked and dismissed. Including the estimated annual savings on bussing magically amounting to exactly the annual repayment of the loan .
It is so frustrating that these systems weren't put into place after the first deficit surprise last year. Where was the board and admin then? Also, it doesn't seem like everything is on the table for cost cutting measures--- like the new school.
I just don't know how they can not do the new school at this point. Not because of political reasons (those would be bad) but because of the contractual terms they accepted in the lease certificate. Unless some random citizen sues, they're pretty much obligated to move forward. The 2022 Board signed a really really bad certificate that doesn't even line up with their own resolution - I'm not sure anyone even read it before they signed.
- They can't use the money for anything else
- They can't pay anything back for 10 years (the resolution says redemption can happen immediately). So there are at least 10 years of $3.25m payments.
- The tax implications if they don't build are bad and ????
- They have no more bond room to take out general bond obligations to pay it off, even if they could (Skokie did this for instance)
I'm open to creative ideas, though. I've heard folks suggest that re-tendering is an option but I'm not sure how that would work and whether these could even be re-tendered.
The whole concept is just so insane - the Administration seemingly made up numbers on the bus savings in order to take out a really horrible mortgage. Imagine like falsifying your income on a mortgage application in order to take out a mortgage that's not even enough for the property you want to buy. It's so laughably absurd.
I think there's a certain amount of audacity for the admin, board, and Dr. Grossi to have all this talk about cost-cutting measures, deficit, etc. without ANY mention (unless I've missed it) of "nothing is off the table. we even looked into our options with respect to the Foster School project and found that, even aside from the fact that we would be extremely hesitant to take that away from that community based on our equity goals, the remaining net cost would be ___, and thus the savings would be ____. Given that, just purely from a financial standpoint, it's not really an option."
You can't defer that conversation to December when Dr. Turner, Dr. Grossi, and Ms. Mitchell will be presenting their recommendations, because such an inquiry -- if done seriously -- would need to happen now/yesterday.
Speaking of made up numbers...page 18 of that doc has the enrollment figures from back then with projections: 21/22 actual - 6,497; 22/23 projected - 7,158
Compare that to the enrollment data shared last night. Ohhh but the birth rates!
Also, none of the enrollment totals in the "Enrollment Trends and Grade Distribution" chart match with the actual enrollment numbers available in the Enrollment Projections reports available online. Wonder where they found their numbers?
This is where we ask if there are any willing law professionals that could at least start the process of legal action against the board/district. The board’s negligence has caused harm to taxpayers and to students. How is there NOT a route to legally address this situation?
I personally blame the state legislature for passing the garbage Local Government Debt Reform Act in 1995, which chips away at the democratic powers of citizens to dictate funding through referendums. Classic Illinois shit to basically pass a loophole
I think less and less of the public is invested in the D65 financials because so many kids left D65. When they left, they left. No looking back. With an enabling Board and disinterested public it was so easy to sneak so much stuff through. Perfect storm.
Yeah, I think the Board turned a blind eye pretty often, especially in the Horton era. They should not get a free pass. They should've been asking for this stuff a long time ago!!
But all of the public who own or rent taxable real estate within D65 boundaries are unavoidably "invested" in the financials. More and more as expenditures increase.
It’s hard to be generous with compliments at this point. Yes, what you’re reporting on in terms of changes and new processes is good —but my god, look at what it took to get here. The District is a mess —financially in ruins. Families leaving in droves, repairs of existing buildings ignored, one school closed (BR) with more coming, a new school being built based on a foundation of lies and financial shenanigans—and a community apathetic to it all. Reading skills are in the toilet along with math ability —and no amount of mucking around with “how we measure” can hide that. There are very austere times coming & sadly, as we’ve all said before, most of this could have been avoided. Kids have been hurt and will continue to be the biggest losers in all of this.
And despite this all, there are people still praising Horton and this BOE. Just head over to the D65 parent & guardians FB page —an embarrassing mean girls collective —where the STPs (same thirty people) are shredding anyone who even posts your substack. They’re openly calling you an anti-black blogger and anyone commenting here with frustration and angst, well we’re all “whyte peepo” indulging in privilege of the highest order. And oh yeah, we’re the most virulent strain of racists you’ve ever met. EYE ROLL.
I wish Dr. Turner the best. I’m not sure how she turns around. What I do know is that the BOE should issue a mea culpa statement to the community and immediately resign. But instead they will take zero responsibility for not asking one g-damn question throughout Horton’s tenure, and in the end, will pat themselves on their collective shoulder for exposing the problems and ushering in solutions.
Buckle in folks—this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sadly.
Thirty is awful generous. It's more like STP = Same Three People. The same three people who I've invited (and the offer still stands to write an op-ed on this blog). I didn't know they were deleting my stories and calling me "anti-black" - I guess they're entitled to their opinions, but I have no idea what that is based on. It should be known that at least one of those folks is a vendor to the District, selling equity books and has a pecuniary interest in defending their misbehavior.
I also think they've been incompetent bearers of the "equity" torch. Consider the equity programs they've advocated for:
- Bessie Rhodes: Closing of the most racially diverse school in the District.
- Foster School: Complete disaster. Their guy had no intent of ever actually building the school he promised them.
- Discipline Policy Rewrite using Restorative Practices: leading to basically no discipline at all. Meanwhile, it's the kids they want to protect getting bullied.
- Ending of things like Middle School Geometry: in the name of fighting "opportunity hoarding" - effectively making sure NO kids of any race can get supports.
It's the very kids they purport to help who are getting punished in this system they advocate for. I think it's completely fair to argue that their policy prescriptions aren't working and they should consider a new approach. Or we all need to stop listening to their ideas.
Add in that some unbelievably fantastic teachers have either retired before they had planned too, or left the district entirely. Far too many kids who are supposed to be getting services aren't, other students who are struggling are only falling further behind and one's who could fly with a little support are falling flat. The district is certainly changing students outcomes and not for the better. Shameful.
Couldn’t agree more with every word you’ve written.
Also, to your equity incompetence list for the BOE, don’t also forget Park School & Rice. Wonder how they’re faring these days? Also the SPED families/kids and the failures serving that student population before —but especially during and after Covid. Sigh.
I'm just thankful for board members using a fine tooth comb in all the right places, such as how lowering the gym ceiling to cut costs might pose an issue for middle school volleyball...at a K-5 school. 🙄
All I hear in this post is more coded language and vague accusations of mistrust against Dr Horton and his team rather than any actual substance....
Let me explain.
D65 has won multiple awards in the last few years for their financial management.
There's 30 million dollars in a surplus fund that was meant to cover these types of yearly deficits that happen.
Every district nation wide is struggling with their budgets. Most budget items that we ended up paying more this year was because of staff shortages in every industry involved. That is not a d65 problem, it is a nation wide problem.
The lease certificates which will be paying for the new school are going to be so well justified. The higher transportation costs go, the more money will literally be saved because we are no longer bussing our children all over the district. This absolutely disproves Tom's skepticism about the lease certificates, I think.
The things listed by this Tom guy include 1.5 million of "federal funds" used to create MORE teachers in d65. That's not taking regular d65 money - it said federal funds. And creating MORE teachers is absolutely amazing. Why would we criticize that effort??!!
The other things in Tom's list were amounts in the thousands, when we are talking about millions of dollars. And each of those items are listed due to Tom's personal issue of questioning the worth of the district's goals and values and mission.
I just got here, so I'm not sure where to put ideas. I'd love to have a conversation with Mr. Hayden re: Housing. It's the "new" crisis in Evanston, I'm not sure how many people know the convoluted and idiotic path CC is taking, and I'd really like to get it into this site.
To TH...this place is great! I'm just in, and would love to have a conversation with you.
"Proposed elimination of “quick invoices” - i.e. invoices that are received and paid before the Board even sees them" If invoices are not paid until the board has reviewed/approved them, payments will be continually past due....and if they're coming at the end of the fiscal year, they won't be paid until the following fiscal year. There are (or were or should be) systems in place in which all expenditures are approved by several levels of administrators before being processed for payment...that alone takes weeks. Adding several more weeks to the process guarantees additional delays. Additionally, there are hundreds of payments on the list of bills that is given to the board each month. Is someone on the board going to review all of those payments before the full board approves them? Wouldn't that result in more delay? (It might be interesting to find out how other districts handle this.)
They mentioned in the meeting that there are different levels of this - some stuff won't require board approval, like utilities, compensation, etc. Other stuff, like new contracts in theory should go through levels of review.
In my business, I get paid by my clients net 90 days. If I got paid in *weeks* I'd be pretty damn happy. Not that unusual for most industries to operate like this, especially public sector stuff. I don't think we should really care if vendors like our payment system or not!
Well you have to admit that none of the fraud would have come to light without a watchdog i e Tom Hayden If the Board and the Administration follow a more honest and truthful path it’s because of one man. Thanks Tom. But it’s a little scary that that’s what is holding them accountable
Tom needs to be paid for his time and energy. A lot.
I do this for fun!!
Agreed! And his time and energy needs to be protected too. Ashe, Ashe, Ashe.
Agree with this sentiment! Thank you, Tom, for doing the digging. I think it was Mya who, in the meeting, expressed surprise that some of these measures weren't already being taken previously. But at the same time, the way it's framed was still more along the lines of (how did the admin not put this in place), not "oh wow, as a board, we should have been tighter on a lot of this stuff."
While it's refreshing to have Dr. Turner and Ms. Mitchell being proactively transparent and laying out systems of accountability, it's frustrating for the board to hear how these kinds of things weren't in place during their oversight and essentially say" Welp!"
One thing I think about - imagine you get appointed to the Board to a public company, a company with $150 million in annual revenue and about 1000 employees. This would be a medium sized company. You appoint a CEO with two bankruptcies and you don't tell any of the shareholders the process you used to hire that CEO. The CEO lies to your face in order to get capital from the bond markets to do a big building investment but also doesn't build the building. He uses your COVID relief money to give contracts to his friends. He also moonlights with a recruiting firm (with Board OK) and hires away your top employees to a third company. The CEO then bounces to a bigger company, while using the company card to relocate. He then owes you fines related to breaking his contract and uses a subordinate to proxy the (late) payments for him.
And the whole time, you're like "he's our guy!"
Then all of a sudden, when the shit hits the fan, you're like "Oh wow, we didn't have any financial controls? I had no idea!" - the shareholders would sue this board into orbit and YOU, the Board Member could actually go to jail. You'd at least be tied up in litigation for years and it would be misery.
That's all wild when you put it like that.
I also think it's worth reminding people that the board members responsible for appointing said CEO brought him in with high pressure/expectations to get said "big building investment" done, to the point where other potential warning signs were overlooked and dismissed. Including the estimated annual savings on bussing magically amounting to exactly the annual repayment of the loan .
I think that's absolutely true - I think certain board members were like "by any means necessary" and he was OK SURE
One thing to add: imagine that much of this was known by the public more or less contemporaneously because it was documented in the press.
Agreed. We can't thank you enough, Tom.
It is so frustrating that these systems weren't put into place after the first deficit surprise last year. Where was the board and admin then? Also, it doesn't seem like everything is on the table for cost cutting measures--- like the new school.
I just don't know how they can not do the new school at this point. Not because of political reasons (those would be bad) but because of the contractual terms they accepted in the lease certificate. Unless some random citizen sues, they're pretty much obligated to move forward. The 2022 Board signed a really really bad certificate that doesn't even line up with their own resolution - I'm not sure anyone even read it before they signed.
- They can't use the money for anything else
- They can't pay anything back for 10 years (the resolution says redemption can happen immediately). So there are at least 10 years of $3.25m payments.
- The tax implications if they don't build are bad and ????
- They have no more bond room to take out general bond obligations to pay it off, even if they could (Skokie did this for instance)
I'm open to creative ideas, though. I've heard folks suggest that re-tendering is an option but I'm not sure how that would work and whether these could even be re-tendered.
Here's the cert:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WHBtiTTahh60FrgAvc3jEeCNrpVYoImw/view?usp=drive_link
The whole concept is just so insane - the Administration seemingly made up numbers on the bus savings in order to take out a really horrible mortgage. Imagine like falsifying your income on a mortgage application in order to take out a mortgage that's not even enough for the property you want to buy. It's so laughably absurd.
I think there's a certain amount of audacity for the admin, board, and Dr. Grossi to have all this talk about cost-cutting measures, deficit, etc. without ANY mention (unless I've missed it) of "nothing is off the table. we even looked into our options with respect to the Foster School project and found that, even aside from the fact that we would be extremely hesitant to take that away from that community based on our equity goals, the remaining net cost would be ___, and thus the savings would be ____. Given that, just purely from a financial standpoint, it's not really an option."
You can't defer that conversation to December when Dr. Turner, Dr. Grossi, and Ms. Mitchell will be presenting their recommendations, because such an inquiry -- if done seriously -- would need to happen now/yesterday.
Speaking of made up numbers...page 18 of that doc has the enrollment figures from back then with projections: 21/22 actual - 6,497; 22/23 projected - 7,158
Compare that to the enrollment data shared last night. Ohhh but the birth rates!
Also, none of the enrollment totals in the "Enrollment Trends and Grade Distribution" chart match with the actual enrollment numbers available in the Enrollment Projections reports available online. Wonder where they found their numbers?
This is where we ask if there are any willing law professionals that could at least start the process of legal action against the board/district. The board’s negligence has caused harm to taxpayers and to students. How is there NOT a route to legally address this situation?
I personally blame the state legislature for passing the garbage Local Government Debt Reform Act in 1995, which chips away at the democratic powers of citizens to dictate funding through referendums. Classic Illinois shit to basically pass a loophole
I think less and less of the public is invested in the D65 financials because so many kids left D65. When they left, they left. No looking back. With an enabling Board and disinterested public it was so easy to sneak so much stuff through. Perfect storm.
Yeah, I think the Board turned a blind eye pretty often, especially in the Horton era. They should not get a free pass. They should've been asking for this stuff a long time ago!!
But all of the public who own or rent taxable real estate within D65 boundaries are unavoidably "invested" in the financials. More and more as expenditures increase.
We're lucky that the state limits increases to 5% per year
It’s hard to be generous with compliments at this point. Yes, what you’re reporting on in terms of changes and new processes is good —but my god, look at what it took to get here. The District is a mess —financially in ruins. Families leaving in droves, repairs of existing buildings ignored, one school closed (BR) with more coming, a new school being built based on a foundation of lies and financial shenanigans—and a community apathetic to it all. Reading skills are in the toilet along with math ability —and no amount of mucking around with “how we measure” can hide that. There are very austere times coming & sadly, as we’ve all said before, most of this could have been avoided. Kids have been hurt and will continue to be the biggest losers in all of this.
And despite this all, there are people still praising Horton and this BOE. Just head over to the D65 parent & guardians FB page —an embarrassing mean girls collective —where the STPs (same thirty people) are shredding anyone who even posts your substack. They’re openly calling you an anti-black blogger and anyone commenting here with frustration and angst, well we’re all “whyte peepo” indulging in privilege of the highest order. And oh yeah, we’re the most virulent strain of racists you’ve ever met. EYE ROLL.
I wish Dr. Turner the best. I’m not sure how she turns around. What I do know is that the BOE should issue a mea culpa statement to the community and immediately resign. But instead they will take zero responsibility for not asking one g-damn question throughout Horton’s tenure, and in the end, will pat themselves on their collective shoulder for exposing the problems and ushering in solutions.
Buckle in folks—this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sadly.
Thirty is awful generous. It's more like STP = Same Three People. The same three people who I've invited (and the offer still stands to write an op-ed on this blog). I didn't know they were deleting my stories and calling me "anti-black" - I guess they're entitled to their opinions, but I have no idea what that is based on. It should be known that at least one of those folks is a vendor to the District, selling equity books and has a pecuniary interest in defending their misbehavior.
I also think they've been incompetent bearers of the "equity" torch. Consider the equity programs they've advocated for:
- Bessie Rhodes: Closing of the most racially diverse school in the District.
- Foster School: Complete disaster. Their guy had no intent of ever actually building the school he promised them.
- Discipline Policy Rewrite using Restorative Practices: leading to basically no discipline at all. Meanwhile, it's the kids they want to protect getting bullied.
- Ending of things like Middle School Geometry: in the name of fighting "opportunity hoarding" - effectively making sure NO kids of any race can get supports.
It's the very kids they purport to help who are getting punished in this system they advocate for. I think it's completely fair to argue that their policy prescriptions aren't working and they should consider a new approach. Or we all need to stop listening to their ideas.
Add in that some unbelievably fantastic teachers have either retired before they had planned too, or left the district entirely. Far too many kids who are supposed to be getting services aren't, other students who are struggling are only falling further behind and one's who could fly with a little support are falling flat. The district is certainly changing students outcomes and not for the better. Shameful.
The most equity forward thing that D65 can do is hire and retain the top tier talent and put them in front of the kids who need it the most
Couldn’t agree more with every word you’ve written.
Also, to your equity incompetence list for the BOE, don’t also forget Park School & Rice. Wonder how they’re faring these days? Also the SPED families/kids and the failures serving that student population before —but especially during and after Covid. Sigh.
I'm just thankful for board members using a fine tooth comb in all the right places, such as how lowering the gym ceiling to cut costs might pose an issue for middle school volleyball...at a K-5 school. 🙄
🤦
Especially since they just exported the athletics function to the City.
This is Dalton. Total corruption. The school board members should have personal liability and should be sued.
Bloomberg has a piece on Tyler Tech and their janky software. It's not just Evanston. It's everywhere.
All I hear in this post is more coded language and vague accusations of mistrust against Dr Horton and his team rather than any actual substance....
Let me explain.
D65 has won multiple awards in the last few years for their financial management.
There's 30 million dollars in a surplus fund that was meant to cover these types of yearly deficits that happen.
Every district nation wide is struggling with their budgets. Most budget items that we ended up paying more this year was because of staff shortages in every industry involved. That is not a d65 problem, it is a nation wide problem.
The lease certificates which will be paying for the new school are going to be so well justified. The higher transportation costs go, the more money will literally be saved because we are no longer bussing our children all over the district. This absolutely disproves Tom's skepticism about the lease certificates, I think.
The things listed by this Tom guy include 1.5 million of "federal funds" used to create MORE teachers in d65. That's not taking regular d65 money - it said federal funds. And creating MORE teachers is absolutely amazing. Why would we criticize that effort??!!
The other things in Tom's list were amounts in the thousands, when we are talking about millions of dollars. And each of those items are listed due to Tom's personal issue of questioning the worth of the district's goals and values and mission.
What? I was complimenting the District in this post. Are we reading the same thing?
check your email...
I just got here, so I'm not sure where to put ideas. I'd love to have a conversation with Mr. Hayden re: Housing. It's the "new" crisis in Evanston, I'm not sure how many people know the convoluted and idiotic path CC is taking, and I'd really like to get it into this site.
To TH...this place is great! I'm just in, and would love to have a conversation with you.
Drop me an email tom@foiagras.com
Yeah Biss/Council are doing some real interesting “affordable” housing things
"Proposed elimination of “quick invoices” - i.e. invoices that are received and paid before the Board even sees them" If invoices are not paid until the board has reviewed/approved them, payments will be continually past due....and if they're coming at the end of the fiscal year, they won't be paid until the following fiscal year. There are (or were or should be) systems in place in which all expenditures are approved by several levels of administrators before being processed for payment...that alone takes weeks. Adding several more weeks to the process guarantees additional delays. Additionally, there are hundreds of payments on the list of bills that is given to the board each month. Is someone on the board going to review all of those payments before the full board approves them? Wouldn't that result in more delay? (It might be interesting to find out how other districts handle this.)
They mentioned in the meeting that there are different levels of this - some stuff won't require board approval, like utilities, compensation, etc. Other stuff, like new contracts in theory should go through levels of review.
In my business, I get paid by my clients net 90 days. If I got paid in *weeks* I'd be pretty damn happy. Not that unusual for most industries to operate like this, especially public sector stuff. I don't think we should really care if vendors like our payment system or not!