Below are candidate-submitted answers to a biographical survey Wednesday Journal sent out to all candidates running in this year’s District 200 school board elections.
Age: 55
Previous political experience: None
Previous community experience:
Selected to several District 97 advisory roles including 2005 Financial Advisory Committee (FAC), member of the Financial Oversight and Review Committee (2007-2012), Chairman of same committee for two years. Appointed Board member for District 97 (2015), and selected to District 97 Superintendent’s Advisory Panel as a community member (2016)
Occupation:
Chief Operating Officer of a Chicago-based financial services firm I co- founded, Executive Vice-President and board member of a global chemical company before that.
Education:
B.S. Chemical Engineering, Michigan Tech, 1984, M.B.A. University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business, 1993.
How would you define the role/functions of a D200 school board member?
I believe that board members play an important role in providing leadership for a school district. From my experience as a District 97 board member, I understand the ultimate goal of the board is to improve achievement for all students. I also think that a board has a fiduciary role for the community to ensure that the district operates efficiently and effectively in line with the support provided by the community.
My focus as a corporate board member was to always work collaboratively with senior management to establish a vision and to align goals with that vision. I feel this is the same for the school board. The school board should work with the Superintendent and her team to implement the vision by reviewing and approving recommendations for policy, budgets, programs, and investments in people and facilities that are in alignment with the vision while also participating in board committees as needed. Finally, the board has the responsibility to hold the Superintendent accountable for meeting the expectations and achieving the outcomes set out by the District’s goals.
Where board members may have specific expertise, members must carefully guard against taking ownership of recommendations or directing specific activities. Board members should focus on asking what, why, when and how-much questions, and encourage the presentation of options for discussion.
In addition to the board members’ role in strategic leadership, board members need to actively build relationships and advocate for the school in the community. The Board must work closely with other governing bodies and actively engage with various stakeholder groups including parents, faculty, students, and other community members.
As a board member, you may be asked to make decisions relating to Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts. What is your understanding of TIF districts? What are your thoughts about their impact on school districts?
Under Illinois law, local governments can create TIF (Tax Increment Financing) districts to aid in the development or redevelopment of specific properties or areas. In Oak Park and River Forest we have typically used TIF districts to redevelop underutilized property; examples relevant to OPRF include the Oak Park Madison Street TIF and Downtown TIF and newly proposed Madison Street and North Avenue TIF districts in River Forest. While TIF districts in Oak Park and River Forest have had positive impacts on specific community areas, the incremental TIF EAV (Equalized Assessed Value) is a relatively small portion (less than 5%) of the total EAV that OPRF high school impacts.
The mechanics of tax increment financing regulations allow the Village to freeze the EAV of property within the TIF district for 23 years, with the possibility to extend at a later date. During the life of the TIF district the taxing bodies continue to receive revenue based on this frozen EAV. Tax revenue collected on the incremental increases in EAV for those properties are placed in a TIF fund and can be used by the Village in a number of ways (project planning, acquiring land, renovating building, improving infrastructure, environmental remediation, or subsidies to developers) to redevelop the property with the goal of increasing its value. At the close of the TIF district the taxing bodies then have the ability to levy against the new growth created. Since a TIF district represents an investment by each taxing body to improve future tax revenues, all taxing bodies can participate in reviewing the proposed village ordinances needed to form the TIF district. This includes a review of how TIF district funds can be used during the life of the agreement. Additionally, other intergovernmental agreements can be created to distribute some funds to the taxing bodies during the life of the TIF. These agreements can often be the subject of significant debate.
TIF districts can create some challenges for the school districts in terms of lumpy cash flows, negative impacts on the school districts’ general state aid (GSA), or simply complicating community perception regarding taxes. If used correctly, however, TIF districts can be effective tools for increasing market values and revenues for all taxing bodies and should be viewed as good for school districts. Over the years in Oak Park, TIF related intergovernmental agreements have helped smooth out the distribution of funds to meet school district needs, support school district investments in buildings, and helped to defer the need for operating referenda and increases in tax rates. However, TIF district agreements have also been the subject of disagreements about use of funds. An important lesson for school districts is to invest the time in reviewing the initial TIF district agreements with an understanding of how the TIF district development objectives or fund distributions may impact the school district in the future. If relevant, the school district may want to pursue agreements regarding distributions, or at least ways to trigger adjustment opportunities if things change over the long time horizon of a TIF district.
Do you think that OPRF has an equity problem? How do you define equity? Do you believe that the district is currently utilizing its resources effectively enough to address the long-standing issue of equity?
An equitable approach to education is about having practices, beliefs, and systems that provide access and opportunities for all students in a way that does not result in outcomes that can be associated with race, gender, or economic status. I believe we need to pair equity with excellence in this context so that we focus on improving our practices and systems in ways that benefit all students, based on their needs.
In this context I believe OPRFHS has many equity challenges. It was clear from my District 97 work on vision and priorities last year that both students and community members believed- and articulated examples- that not all students are experiencing the school in the same way. As students move on to OPRFHS, discipline data, the make up of advanced placement courses and student academic performance measures all suggest that these issues persist, and that OPRFHS may be a great school for many students, but not for all.
I feel that the Board’s focus on this equity challenge at OPRFHS has suffered somewhat in the last few years with other priorities drawing attention. Despite this I don’t feel there is a shortage of programs, or resources, focused on better addressing equity concerns (step-up, test prep, tutoring, mentorship, etc). It is difficult however to know if these resources are being used effectively. Based on my experience, effective systems typically require well- structured processes designed to deliver specific outcomes. Discussions in these environments tend to revolve around data and outcome metrics. Based on my exposure to programs at OPRF to date, I have not seen this kind of rigor and focus that leads to continuous improvement. I am very encouraged by the new Superintendent who is now bringing much more of this type of thinking. I am also supportive of redistributing some of these District resources to be sure we develop better coordinated, more rigorous, and more clearly defined expected outcomes going forward. I believe that effectiveness may be a weakness that has slowed progress on equity issues and limited our ability to impact the academic performance gap.
Were you for or against the recent swimming pool referendum that failed? Explain your position.
As the parent of a child who spent several years in the Oak Park TOPS swim program, and having visited many other local pool facilities, I personally feel that there is a need for addressing the condition of the current pool facilities and feel there could be justification for some level of upgrade. I understand the community is very split on this issue, and while I greatly respected the efforts and the intentions of the District 200 Board to address the pool facilities issue openly and to seek community input on solutions, I had concerns with the process and referendum proposal.
Firstly, the District requested support for major enhancements to facilities, but in my opinion did not adequately put this request in the context of other priority facility and program needs that will also consume existing fund balances and require operating funds to support in the future. I felt that without this context, a $44.5 million request to achieve those upgrades was too expensive and would struggle to be supported by a broader
community. My second issue was more about process: There were many occurrences in the process of bringing this referendum to ballot that created confusion (information on options, funding choices) and contributed to a lack of understanding. Ultimately these process issues impacted my confidence in the recommendation being made.
As much as I wanted District 200 to close on this pool issue and move the focus of the Board to other priorities, I also felt that the community needed a proposal that could be strongly supported and would help us come together to move forward. I did not feel this proposal accomplished that. For these reasons, I voted “No” at the time.
If elected, I view the resolution of the pool issue as a priority. Our students deserve a quality facility, but we must work to resolve this in the context of the larger set of priorities in our strategic plan.
What is your impression of the new community outreach committee that will be attempting to build community consensus around a financially feasible long-term facilities plan that addresses numerous issues at the high school, including equity, 21st century learning environments and a plan for replacing OPRF’s old swimming pools, among other issues?
The outreach committee approach is addressing concerns I had with the prior referendum: Primarily, working for solutions in the context of broader priorities and the strategic plan and secondly, directly involving community groups on different sides of these issues to find some common ground, with the goal of a more widely supportable solution to put forward to the community.
While I am generally supportive, I have some concerns with the size of the team being assembled and the challenge involved in focusing and educating this large group given the complexity of some of the issues. While I understand that the Board will not participate on the committee, I feel that Board and Superintendent leadership will be critical for success. I feel the Board must take the lead to clearly set expectations, establish guidelines, and define intended outcomes for this process. I understand the Board President’s comments about not wishing to be involved- particularly in light of the referendum- but I am concerned that this could translate into a hands-off leadership approach at the board level that would concern me.
If elected, I would ask to be the board member responsible for listening and leading the Board oversight of this committee. My leadership experience, coupled with professional experience in complex construction challenges and a good understanding of school finance from years of involvement in District 97’s finance committees positions me well to support this effectively.
Are you aware of OPRF’s most recent disciplinary data (for the first semester of 2016-17) and what are your thoughts about its accuracy?
The first semester disciplinary report indicated dramatic reductions in ISS (In-School Suspensions) and OSS (Out-of-School Suspensions) as well as a large drop off in total infractions. School administration attributed this to efforts by faculty to alter conversations with students, and a focus by Student Intervention Directors to stop the practice of issuing
ISS for lesser infractions. It is also noted that this is the first report that is impacted by Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), which restricts the authority and imposes new requirements on school districts to use suspension as a disciplinary tool.
Discussion at the Committee of the Whole and Culture Climate and Behavior Committee meetings in January seemed to provide anecdotal support for improvement in practices and the use of more restorative approaches. A deeper look at the data from the prior 3 years of 1st semester disciplinary reports also supports this by showing a declining trend in total infractions from 2013 through 2015-16 (excluding ‘failure to serve’ categories from the data).
However, the significant drop-off in total infractions (excluding ‘failure to serve” categories) in 1st semester 2016-17 versus the prior 3 years (469 in 2013, 440 in 2014, 373 in 2015, and 150 in 2016) causes me to be concerned that the data is not comparable and it may not be an accurate representation of the progress being made. While SB 100 should be directly impacting suspension actions, it may also be influencing the reporting of infractions in other ways not evident in the data or discussion. This concern is further supported by a lack of specifics from the administration to explain factors that caused the dramatic improvement.
While I believe that the district is making progress, a deeper understanding and structuring of new practices and the data being reported is warranted.
Are there other issues or initiatives that you are particularly interested in having the board pursue during the next four years and how are you planning to advocate for them?
I have summarized below the key issues that I am particularly interested in having the board pursue. Many of these threads are present in the above discussion as well.
Establishing a new approach to leadership within the school community: Meaningfully engage with the community, the staff, faculty, and the students and more clearly establish priorities based on the strategic plan. Restructure our engagement approaches from issue- specific committees to small standing advisory committees (finance and facilities to start) that include community stakeholders with expertise appropriate to the opportunity.
Better establish our vision for equity and excellence for every student: Capture community momentum and commit to measurable progress. Better define intended outcomes and use data to understand what is working. Actively seek out new approaches from other Districts, as well as input from OPRF student, faculty, and parent groups. Have the courage to try new approaches in measured ways.
Manage the community’s fiscal burdens through financial responsibility, prioritizing goals anddirecting resources to what works. Focus on better long-term planning for facilities and other investments. Focus on those things we can control and find ways to link costs to revenue in fair and sustainable ways.