The Chicago Tribune reported this weekend on the questionable spending practices implemented by the Lake Forest's District 67 and District 115 school boards.
While overseeing the two districts, which share administrators, former superintendent Harry Griffith was among the highest paid public school administrators in the state, with a salary of $362,000 in the 2011-12 school year alone, the Tribune reports. Besides his salary, he also reaped numerous other benefits – the school boards forgave him a $75,000 loan to buy a house, he traveled twice yearly to an educators conference at a resort in California, the district provided a car – as well as gas and maintenance – which they let him keep upon retirement.
The Chicago Tribune also reported that during the 2010-11 school year, the districts paid more than 60 restaurant bills under his name, with “little or no documentation showing who was with him or whether the meals were business-related.” In his final school year alone, Griffith spent nearly $15,000 on “entertainment, travel, professional development, car repairs and membership dues.”
Both Lake Forest High School and Deer Path Middle School were ranked among the best in the Chicagoland area recently, with LFHS ranking 13th among high schools and DPMS ranking 39th amongst elementary and middle schools.
'Like' the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Patch on Facebook for more news about schools.
LFHS also ranked 1st among average administrator's salary, with an average of $175,375 per administrator. (For comparison, Homewood Flossmoor District 233 ranked second, with an average of $167, 237 per administrator.)
This wasn’t the first time that the Lake Forest school boards have given hefty perks above traditional payment for administrators. The Tribune reported in a Nov. 25 article that in 2006 Jennifer Hermes, a District 67 business administrator, put her Naperville house up for sale in order to buy a house closer to her job in Long Grove. When the Naperville house hadn’t sold after two years, Hermes borrowed $28,000 from the district to cover her mortgage. As of last month, Hermes still owed the district $16,400, the Tribune says.
But housing assistance is common in the private sector, Michael Jacoby, executive director of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials told the Tribune. “Most people don’t move unless there is some support in housing,” he said. “In the public sector it’s a little bit less the status quo, but it’s all part of if you want a quality leader and if those are the issues in stopping them … It’s up to the board of educators to make that decision.
Griffith retired from his position as superintendent at the end of the 2011-12 school year, which many residents felt was necessary after it was found that former Deer Path Middle School Principal John Steinert had been convicted in 2009 for misdemeanor harrassment by electronic communication for sexually explicit text messages, voice mails and a lewd photo from his school district-issued cell phone to a 22-year-old Lake Forest College student.
A petition posted by Lake Forest resident Michael Beacham on Change.org called for District 67 school board members to vote for Griffith's termination, citing that Griffith "demonstrated gross incompetence and derelication of duty to the students in his care." The petition was signed by 113 people before it was closed.
A Lake Forest city caucus will decide in a closed door meeting on Tuesday whether or not to renominate incumbents of the two school boards to run for re-election in the spring.
For more information on updates to the story, sign up for the Lake Forest-Lake Bluff Patch's free newsletter here.
You have accurately portrayed the way the LB School Caucus is "supposed" to work, according to its bylaws. Perhaps in the past there were elections where the Caucus worked as well as you describe. In practice however, over the current election cycle, the LB Caucus has strayed from its mission. I noticed your name is not listed as a current member. Perhaps you have not been involved this cycle? Maybe you should reach out to the members you trust to give you real story. A quick review of the LB Caucus bylaws shows that non-partisan politics is essential to the Caucus delivering on its model as designed. This is where the LB Caucus has strayed this election cycle. The Caucus volunteers have been heavily influenced by the politics of a small group of LB citizens with a very specific "Tea Party" type agenda. So much so that the Caucus will soon publicly endorse a slate of 4 candidates who's own leader told the Caucus at its open interview that he will only run if he can pick his own team. Even after that brazen statement he and his team was endorsed. This is a one issue slate with one goal in mind. This is party politics and the Caucus has dropped the ball and strayed very far from its non-partisan mission. Don't be fooled. The Caucus system is a relic and its time has past.
By the way, being accused of having a "Tea Party type agenda" must mean that those people are serious about getting government spending under control.
I found the entire Caucus process quite open. A neighbor of ours asked me if she could nominate me for the committee on candidates. I was interviewed and subsequently appointed. Men and women from all walks of life serve on the caucus. I found it to be a very good cross section of residents. And our deliberations were entirely above board as we considered whom to slate for appointments or nominations to elective office. Any resident of Lake Forest who wishes to be considered for appointive or elective office is encouraged to file an application. My sense is that there are more positions than there are applicants. Having said as much, I do think that members of the school boards -- #67 and #115 -- need to take a more pro-active stance regarding transparency. Clearly some lapses have occurred.
Your comment "he will only run if he can pick his own team" has been posted out of context, and that candidate had no "team." He interviewed independently as did all others. The "team" he was seeking to find if elected, was one that would have the same commitment as he did; to work hard to achieve considerate solutions/resolutions to the needs of the district. Your comment "This is a one issue slate with one goal in mind." - I've been a volunteer on the LB Caucus for a few years now and our only agenda/goal continues to be seeking, interviewing, and promoting qualified school board candidates on a nonpartisan basis who demonstrate a willingness to consider and reflect upon the needs of our students as well as the tax payers. We have members who are both tax paying users and tax paying non-users. There is no agenda or alignment with any other affiliations, period.
Give me a break you are just one of those yes folks who has found a home among the shallow folks. If you are what you say you are then show us with our voice and vote to replace the board. To merely suggest some lapses have occurred is a gross understatement and reflective of your true lack of understand about the events. This clown Prince Harry has made it thru a board of fools by so called leaders and caucus appointees. How is it that a past board member was a Human Resource Liberal Attorney allowed this nonsense to take place. How is it this legacy of trash continues on the board today. The process is stacked. Vote them off. What arrogance does a person have to feel he is worthy of a consulting position yet today. Who put him there? Is there no shame for the major bank in town who has Prince Harry on the Board? What are they thinking? Its a joke and frankly deserving of town full of want to be people.
The statement made by the Caucus endorsed candidate is out there. It is not out of context. It is real. He told the Caucus that he is a reluctant candidate and will only run if he can chose his team. The facts are the facts. Actions speak louder than words, and with the endorsement of this candidate and his hand picked team the actions of the Caucus confirm that partisanship has corrupted the process. Lake Bluffers need to look closely at this slate and where they have come from and what they intend to do. their agenda has nothing to do with our children or their education. its a one issue slate. its politics. its partisanship. the Caucus is a relic and needs to go.
Why did they take campaign donations from the Lake Forest Bank, where Harry Griffith sat on the board, who clearly had a conflict of interest while he was directing money to the LF Caucus to defeat candidates he didn't want to deal with? ... all while accusing the other candidates of fund raising fraud that never occurred. Look folks, it's just dirty hard-ball Chicago style politics. It's nothing new. It was nasty and border-line illegal, but no one was killed. They say they don't do it , but they did (actually, no is saying they didn't do it, are they? hmmmm). It's completely ridiculous to think that an organization which chooses candidates for a political office, and then campaigns for those candidates, is a "non-partisan organization". Of course they are partisan, and right now they lean heavily left. The LF Caucus is Lake Forest's only political party, and if you want competitive elections where our representatives answer to the whole community instead of a small group of people, then you'll have to stop griping and start a second party. If you do, you'll have my support.
I don't know the whole slate but I personally know two of the people on it. One IS an educator and the other is the son of one, and both have strongly supported all of the investments we've made in our schools over the last decade. Neither came to the caucus on a "hand picked slate". Like everyone in town though, including current school board members and district administrators, they too are concerned about our prop tax rates and have expertise that I believe will help produce appropriate fiscal policy without compromising the level of education provided. Good news - your concerns that the school caucus in LB has been taken over by a single agenda group and its slate of candidates are its philosophical acolytes cannot be true. If anyone is still concerned, once the new board is in place, the amount of community engagement in what the board is doing and its respectful discourse with the board will significantly influence their decisions.
That candidate's comments were not intended to represent the ideas you have presented to the readers here. You are the one with the hidden agenda by misleading the public. That candidate fully understands that nobody, not even the Caucus can hand pick anyone let alone a "team." Again, the team he was seeking was one that would work hard to get a group concensus on how to move forward to build a better school district and keep our community attractive to home buyers. He wanted to feel confident he could be an effective board member by volunteering. He is a happy retired citizen who loves LB. Caucus members have been working hard to promote good citizenship always... without one single agenda. We all have differing opinions but have worked very hard to encourage people to volunteer to help our schools and our community. Even the parents/users on the Caucus understand that we have to live within our means. The charm and attraction here includes both the eclectic group of citizens and the outstanding professional educators. I'm hoping the new Board will work hard to find ways to keep them both.
Please use your name when posting. Transparency is the honest and thoughtful approach when dealing with community members, always!
To all: Did we learn anything during the LFHS strike...I saw lots of responses oat that time about people calling for 'new BOE members'. What happened? Are we getting the same ole' same ole' with the new Caucus slate? Will there be a candidate forum for the community to ask the tough questions? Folks, take a look at the LF Caucus website...do you see any conflicts of interest? Make an informed decision.
To be continued
The situation was not "Chicago-style cronyism" or some sort of corruption in the LF Caucus. It's important to have at least some knowledge of a problem before trying to solve it. Not to you, apparently. The LB "monstrosity" was only $19 million - $5 million went into the Middle School. Yes, I did support building up a surplus, as required by the State of Illinois after we found in 2003 that the district was in a $2 million hole. That's when the build-up started. In my last year, as it approached 10 million, I did argue that it was getting too high. So, I am in agreement. It's certainly better that the district hasn't spent all the money it's gotten in any year since 2003. If you had been paying attention you would have known that I stood up at the school board meeting just this September with others in the LB community, and urged the board to go into deficit spending to bring the fund balance down to a more reasonable level. It has to be done carefully. BTW. if the State of Illinois dumps more unfunded pension obligations onto the local districts as is threatened, LB may need the money.
If the State dumps unfunded pension obligations back onto the districts, it could be a blessing in disguise. Perhaps then, the districts will begin to exercise some restraint in negotiating the out of control teacher and administrator contracts. Harry Griffith will laugh all the way to the bank while the taxpayers cry on the road to the poorhouse.
But I think that's kinda your style, Eric Grenier, talking out of both sides of your mouth. Case in point you agree to jacking up the D65 surplus for 7 years and then in year 8, with 10 million in the bank and as you were walking out the door wondered if it was "getting too high." One dime in reserves was getting too high in this taxpayer's opinion.
The present Caucus organization has been in existence for many years. It is way past time for voters to have candidates to vote for who are free from any hint of past actions. These actions seem to have called forth all manner of pubic distrust over how candidates were selected in the past and subsequently elevated to board positions, more on their loyalty to ex-superintendent Harry Griffith, then being responsible to tax payers as good stewards of their tax dollars.