Wind Full Of Hot Air for Farmington

The Farmington School District, Abingdon, Knoxville, Galesburg and ROWVA Districts, and Sandburg College spent $70,000 and a year of study time to figure out that local generation of power from wind wouldn't pay off.

The PJS article says:

Part of the study looked at the possibility of the schools sharing the benefits of a wind farm, but the cost of getting electricity to the different schools appears to have nullified potential cost savings.

Apparently they think they could get something working with grant money to the tune of around $2 millions per turbine. Uhhh-huuhh.

Any takers?

Electric Bill Savings

If you haven't looked at florescent lighting lately, you are in for a real treat. These energy savers used to be slow to light, dim, and huge. They now come in bright, compact (same size as your incandescents), "decorator", and even dimmable versions.

Regardless of what happens in Springfield in connection with the electrical rate "freeze" you can save some big bucks by switching.

At an electric rate of seven cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), using a 75 watt incandescent light bulb for 5 hours per day will cost $9.58 per year to run.

Replace it with a 20 watt compact fluorescent light bulb, the annual electricity cost will be $2.56.

That's a savings of $7.02 per year. Over the life of the bulb (6,000 hours is the lowest rated life for most compact fluorescents), the savings will total $38.50. That's $38.50 per bulb, folks!

Plus, and this is a big selling point for us, you don't have to change the things every couple of months like "regular" bulbs!

More pay for all in Springfield

Even though they can't seem to find funding for paying Illinois' bills (like Medicare payments and pension contributions for down-state teachers), the General Assembly in Springfield didn't balk at giving themselves $5 millions a year in raises.

Here was the "hard work of the people":

Gov. from $150,700 to $165, 150

General Assembly from $57,600 to $63,150

Lt. Gov., Comptroller, Treasurer from $115,250 to $126,300

Att. General, Sec. of State from $133,000 to $145, 700

The vote also raised salaries for other top elected officials, including judges and states attorneys. At least they work full time and it's clear what they do to earn the dough. Salaries for those public officials vary, but many of them earn more than legislators. (this would indeed fall into the category of "unfunded mandates")

This is just bad, bad, bad.

School District 140 avoids "Truth in Taxation" - barely

Eureka-Congerville-Goodfield CUSD #140 is asking for around $270,000 more with their property tax extension levy this year versus last. That's about $165 per student enrolled.

The tax increase is around 4.3 %. Is it co-incidental that it comes in just under the 5% level which would trigger public hearings?

The District School Board would have us believe that there is no tax increase, because the tax rate won't change much, but as always, the budget and the extension tell the true story; not the rate, not the EAV, not abatements.

The Board is pocketing the tax rate ($4.48 per $100 EAV) multiplied by the increase in the value of property taxed. It's a built in budget increase every year for ALL taxing authorities.

Unfortunately, our property tax bill goes up no matter what they call it.

Some folks retort, "hey - your home is WORTH more! You should pay more."

We say something only has value when it is sold. Tax us then. Otherwise, you're taxing our savings and retirement - our assets, and we can't keep up. The CUSD 140 extension over the last ten years has doubled. And they, comparatively, do a GOOD job.

ComEd and Ameren monies plugged in

From the aforementioned Board of Elections site, these are 2006 to date contributions $10,000 and above:

Ameren PO Box 66892 St Louis, MO 63166	$20,000.00 10/12/2006	Individual Contribution The Illinois Chamber Pac
Ameren P.O. Box 66892 Saint Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 5/2/2006	Individual Contribution Friends of Blagojevich
Ameren P.O. Box 66892 Saint Louis, MO 63166	$15,000.00 10/30/2006	Individual Contribution Friends of Blagojevich
Ameren PO Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 9/30/2006	Individual Contribution Democratic Party of Illinois
Ameren PO Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$15,000.00 11/2/2006	Individual Contribution Democratic Party of Illinois
Ameren 607 E. Adams Street Springfield, IL 62739	$10,000.00 3/1/2006	Individual Contribution Republican State Senate Campaign
Ameren 607 E. Adams Street Springfield, IL 62739	$10,000.00 9/22/2006	Individual Contribution Republican State Senate Campaign
Ameren P.O. Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 9/19/2006	Individual Contribution Citizens to Elect Tom Cross
Ameren P.O. Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 2/27/2006	Individual Contribution Citizens to Elect Tom Cross
Ameren P.O. Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$15,000.00 10/11/2006	Individual Contribution Citizens for Emil Jones
Ameren P.O. Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 10/23/2006	Individual Contribution Citizens for Emil Jones
Ameren 607 E. Adams St. Mail Code C100 Springfield, IL 62739	$10,000.00 3/6/2006	Transfer In Citizens for Frank Watson
Ameren P.O. Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 3/6/2006	Individual Contribution House Republican Organization
Ameren PO Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 3/8/2006	Individual Contribution Friends of Michael J Madigan
Ameren 607 East Adams Springfield, IL 62739	$25,000.00 3/1/2006	Individual Contribution Ameren IL PAC
Ameren PO Box 66892 St. Louis, MO 63166	$10,000.00 9/27/2006	Individual Contribution Friends of Michael J Madigan
Ameren 607 E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62739	$15,000.00 3/7/2006	Individual Contribution Illinois Senate Democratic Fund
Ameren 607 E. Adams St. Springfield, IL 62739	$10,000.00 11/3/2006	Individual Contribution Illinois Senate Democratic Fund

ComEd PAC 1 Financial Place 33rd FL. Chicago, IL 60605	$14,000.00 9/18/2006	Transfer In Citizens for Emil Jones
ComEdPAC 1 Financial Place 33rd FL Chicago, IL 60605	$10,000.00 10/3/2006	Transfer In Manufacturers PAC (MPAC)
ComEdPAC 1 Financial Place 33rd Floor Chicago, IL 60605	$10,000.00 9/22/2006	Transfer In Illinois Merchants PAC Team

ComEd looks cheap compared to Ameren, huh?

Today in the Illinois Senate we saw what PAC money did for the mimimum wage hike. We'll soon see how the Electic Rates come out.

S(c)hocked

While trolling through the campaign contributions at the Illinois State Board of Elections Campaign Disclosure site, we were a little surprised to find this last minute contribution to Citizens for Schock:

Khazzam, Alexis N

$16,000.00 11/2/2006

We were, frankly, also a little surprised at this one:

Illinois PAC for Education (IPACE)

$10,000.00 11/1/2006

seeing as how they usually fund Dems a little more heavily. A little further investigation reveals that Big Education did fund Republican candidates a little heavier this time around, but only if they were incumbents. Next to nothing went to Republican challengers. Interesting.

We will be posting some more numbers (what we were originally searching for) in the near future.

Peoria Chronicle Skewers PJS

Here's todays impalement of the Peoria Journal Star on its recent stand regarding the bonds for District 150:

Journal Star could use some remedial civics classes itself

from The Peoria Chronicle by C. J. Summers

Speaking of the Journal Star’s editorial yesterday, they sum up their case for PBC funding with this condescending paragraph:

But again, the primary criticism comes from those who’ve never quite come to grips with the fact that they live in a republic, not a direct democracy. Should District 150 regain its PBC connection, perhaps it should spend those funds constructing a building in which they teach civics, the lessons of which seem lost on a certain segment of the population.

Translation: if you’re against the school being able to get funding through the Public Building Commission (PBC), then you’re an ignorant boob in need of remedial education.

Maybe the editors of the Journal Star should attend those civics lessons instead. They can start by studying the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, where he says that governments “deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus, if the people don’t want the school board to have the power to spend tax money on new schools without a binding referendum, that is perfectly within the rights of the citizens of a republic.

Indeed, one needn’t throw out the school code or the Constitution, nor do they need to resort to direct democracy, in order to place reasonable limits on their representatives in our current form of government. In the case of the PBC, these limits already exist, and those who oppose PBC funding are not arguing for new legislation, but the status quo.

And since when is it the job of our legislators to represent other municipal corporations? Are Schock and Shadid representatives of the school board or the people? In this case, they’re acting as representatives of the school board, since the people clearly don’t consent to additional bonding authority being given.

And since the Journal Star thinks PBC funding should be available to all, why are they in favor of SB2477 which would only grant this bonding authority (a) for 5 years, and (b) only for Peoria Public School District 150? The Journal Star should be fundamentally opposed to this abridgment of our republic and advocate instead a bill that would completely repeal the 1993 law that stripped all school boards from using the PBC. Of course, such a bill would never pass the legislature, because it’s easier for representatives from elsewhere in Illinois to pass laws that don’t affect their constituents.

Here’s another civics lesson for the Journal Star: citizens of Illinois have the right under Illinois’ constitution “to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of grievances.” In other words, voting our representatives out of office is not our only avenue for participation.

What Education means when they say "community involvement"

This article, and a response, have some interesting insights into how our school districts stack the deck when it comes to "citizen advisory committees":

Daily Pantagraph: Olympia wants to spend money on new grade school

STANFORD -- Olympia school district residents want to spend referendum
money on a new Olympia North Elementary School and upgrading electrical
and security systems at all the schools.

That was the consensus of five groups of residents reporting this week to the district’s Citizens Facilities Planning Committee.

That was the consensus of five groups of residents reporting this week to the district’s Citizens Facilities Planning Committee . . .

The planning committee was organized to collect public opinion on how
to spend money from the April 2007 referendum. The five groups that
report to committee were formed as part of a series of public meetings
last month at Olympia’s five schools . . .

The April 2007 referendum will have two questions asking for a total
tax rate increase of $1 per $100 equalized assessed valuation . . .

One referendum will ask voters to let the district issue $12.5 million in
bonds for construction. That would carry a rate increase of 50 cents
per $100 EAV.

The other referendum would seek an increase of 50
cents per $100 EAV for the education fund, which pays for most
operating expenses. The education rate would increase from $2.40 per
$100 EAV to $2.90 per $100 EAV . . .

“They [the committees] have now been able to see the common needs throughout the district and definitely have developed a district view and perspective,” [District Superintendent Hahn] said. “(District architect Sam) Johnson (of BLDD Architects) told them to put their board member hat on, and they did just that.”

Too bad the architect didn't tell them to put on their "tax payer hat" instead of their "Board hat".

In response to that Pantagraph article, the following was posted anonymously on their website in the way of a reply:

"Just so you all know. I was part of one of the "Community Groups". Yeah, we
were told to put our "board member hats" on, BUT we were also given constraints surrounding how we spent our money. The "BOARD" had already decided that we would build a new school for North. The only thing we got to "recommend" was how big the replacement school would be and how we should spend the rest of the $$ from the bond. We had to make sure we were "fair" with how we split the rest out in order to try and sell the idea to the rest of the district. What a total joke!"

The Illinois Loop has an excellent piece on School Committees and the administration strategies involved. It's nine pages for those of you interested in the whole thing. Here are some excerpts:

At best, many "consensus" committees whittle away personal goals in favor of lukewarm
conclusions that make no one happy. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of
little minds."

These techniques (sometimes labeled as "Delphi" methods), were developed early in the 20th
century, where they were heavily used by trade unionists and by progressive social organizers
such as Saul Alinsky. These techniques are heavily in use today by corporations, churches,
human resource organizations, trade organizations and social groups in forming a "consensus"
supporting pre-constructed goals. It use of the "committee" along these lines has been a powerful tool used by schools in building support for changes in school policies or curriculum.

The key to such committees using these techniques is that the desired outcome is planned in
advance. The purpose of the committee is not to design or plan or come up with a new course of
action. Rather, the purpose is to "achieve consensus" on a desired course of action that is already known (by the organizers).

Many people are well-familiar with these techniques from their use in business, though they don't usually recognize them as such unless it is pointed out. Corporations might use such committees to enlist employee support for a new program or reorganization.
The same techniques are also often used by trade organizations and professional associations to
solidify support for the most commonly-held agenda items, and to winnow out more marginal
concerns.

A key element of these committees is the "small workgroup". Members of the whole committee
are assigned into smaller groups to "work" on some subset of the "task" assigned. This has a
number of effects.

1. First and foremost, it breaks up cohorts so that like-minded people each find themselves as
the odd man out in their small workgroups.
One strategy that is extremely common in school presentations and committee meetings is
"random assignment": As participants enter the meeting room, they are handed a card with
a number, which is the number of the groups that have been assigned to. This technique is
extremely effective in breaking up sets of people that arrive together. If three people feel
strongly about an issue and arrange to go to the meeting together, they could exert
influence if they were allowed to be in the same group. This technique prevents that.

2. Beyond that, these small workgroups keep people from challenging the big picture, from
questioning the limitations of overall structure or the material provided, and from limiting
concerns to one's own group and not disturbing or questioning the progress of another
workgroup.

In schools, these committees are used to get teachers, parents and others to "buy into" a proposed initiative. There is nothing resembling Robert's Rules of Order or any informal procedure even vaguely related. There is no open debate, no discussion of what the goals of the committee should be, and certainly no voting. It goes without saying that there is no process to select a leader for the group -- the leader is already a given, typically a school administrator who has been trained in the techniques of being a group "facilitator".

Any of this sounding familiar, folks?

For another take on this problem, see this post from C.J. Summers:

Arnstein’s Ladder

Tazwell County Spending To Rise 1%

According to the Peoria Journal Star:

The Tazewell County Board is set to approve a $49.5 million fiscal year
2007 spending plan that includes money for additional correctional
officers at the Tazewell County Jail and funding for improvements
within the Supervisor of Assessments Office.

They go on to say later in the article that:

Overall, the budget is up about $500,000 from what was budgeted in fiscal 2006.

Sixty percent of the budget for next year will go for salaries and benefits.

Illinois HB 750 Tax Swipe . . . erhh . . . Swap.

The Illinois Democrat election wins and domination in Springfield seem to presuppose the passage of Illinois HB 750. The teachers unions have made it quite clear what they expect for their massive contributions to candidates.

The HB 750 "tax swap" to reform education funding has been in the works for nearly two years. The idea is to reduce dependence on property taxes for education. That sounds like a reasonable plan until you examine what they really mean by this. Hint: all education money will go first to Springfield and then to the schools; no more local referendums - no more local control, and no guarantee that local property taxes won't go right back up to previous levels.

This is simply a tax increase, and a move to put education funding into Springfield where it can be controlled by Big Education and the unions.

Income taxes are to go up by 2% and business income taxes by 4%. There will be a 6% sales tax on "services". There is to be a tax abatement to reduce the portion of property taxes going for education, subject, of course to interpretation in Springfield. However, there is really no guarantee that this money will find it's way back to property tax payers and indeed, without being cynical, we wouldn't be surprised to hear an announcement down the road that this money is needed to make up short falls in the teachers' pension funding.

The estimated increase in taxes will be $7.2 billion; the estimated property tax reduction will be $2.5 billion; as if we don't have enough problems with the business climate and job creation here in Illinois!

HB 750 sounds good if you listen to education, Springfield, the media, and the unions; not so hot if you examine the real bill. Unfortunately, there is no real clout lined up to oppose this assault on tax payers.

The Extensions Are Coming. The Extensions Are Coming!

Over the next few weeks your friendly local neighborhood Taxing Authorities will be releasing their requested property tax extensions. We think we can safely predict that none of them will be less than last year although some may be claiming they are "reducing taxes" because they are temporarily lowering the tax rate.

In addition, the "stealth tax" - the silent tax hikes due to rising appraisals - will continue to rise. This is due to taxing districts spending the increased property taxes from higher appraisals but not lowering the tax rates.

There are three factors to keep in mind when reviewing these extensions. The first is the tax rate, which Woodford County for example, plans to lower. The second is the EAV (equalized assessed valuation). That's the sum of all the assessed valuation property in the taxing area. The last is the levy, which is what the taxing district says it needs to operate, which Woodford County for example, will be up.

To avoid the confusion, which benefits the taxing authorities because it decreases criticism from the public, the easiest thing for a voter to do is focus on spending by the taxing authorities. Is it up? How much? Is that reasonable? Where is this "new money" coming from?

The real issue for the County, School Districts, Library Districts, Fire Districts, Community Colleges (especially ICC) is SPENDING, and how much is the budget increase? The rest can be, and usually is, smoke and mirrors.

Still No Woodford County Web Site!

It has now been eight months since the Peoria Journal Star headline screamed, "Woodford County To Develop Web Site"!

Chairman Whitaker said, "Ten years ago, I would have scratched my head and said, 'Is this something we really need?' Today, we really need it."

The newly hired Administrator Greg Jackson said, "There are efficiencies that can be gained from e-government technologies," Jackson said. "It also shows the public that we are an open government and allows (the general public) to come online and see what we can do."

Of course this was during the primary election when certain candidates were vowing to "drag Woodford County, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the 21st century". We believed then and we believe now that this publicized vapor-ware of a web site was a stunt.

The County Board granted over $6,000 to Minonk to develop a web site. It's granted money to El Paso. Presumably the need is perceived for a county website:

Jackson said his efforts, thus far, have been well-received, with all the county department heads and elected officials supportive of the Web idea. "They are as excited about this as I am," he said.

Meanwhile, citizens of Woodford County must drive by the County Boardroom in order to see meeting agendas and minutes. There is no easy way to email Board Members. There is no easy way for voters to monitor budgets or committee meetings. The majority of Illinois counties had up to the minute elections results last week. Not Woodford. Many Illinois Counties allow for fee paying online. Not Woodford County.

Perhaps the leadership has been too busy scheduling special meetings to discuss the sanctioning of other Board members to worry about tax payer participation in local government.

This is an issue of transparency in government. Woodford should open up to scrutiny by the taxpayers.

Eight months and counting since the promises. We'll keep you posted.