Will Co. (ECWd) –
Nope, you can’t make this stuff up!
How would you like to have a day care business that you don’t have to worry about any overhead such as a building, heating, electric, plumbing, sewer, and water? Add the fact that all the food needs are met by the District Food Service and all you have to do is pay “their” cost. And let’s not forget snow removal for the buildings, parking lots and sidewalks; all building and landscaping maintenance, and repairs.
And if that is not a sweet enough deal for you to go into the Day Care Business, what if you could get all that without having to compete for a ten year contract and never even have to pay rent for the space you are using?
Oh yeah, insurance on the building in which you operate is also covered on the backs of the taxpayer!
It makes me ask, who owns Aunt Nancy’s Daycare and who are they connected to in this District?
To the citizens of District 210, it is time to wake up and take control of your local government because it is becoming ever so clear you have serious problems.
Ironically I just wrote an article today where we hit on the 14th amendment and what it means. I never dreamed I would have to raise that issue again in the same day, but it turns out the citizens of D210 have a serious problem and could possibly face even bigger problems if a citizen or a group of them get ticked off enough to take action.
“WHEREAS, School District 210 has determined that providing a school daycare for its employees , students, and district residents is beneficial to its staff, students and community residents;”
Now on the surface that sounds like a great option for the employees, students and district residents. Daycare can be one of the biggest challenges for families where both parents work.
Now keep in mind, this Day Care facility is being funded with tax dollars and the person operating it is considered a private contractor, that in this case, did not have to compete for the opportunity.
The contract outlines a priority for enrollment that I found rather interesting.
a) Children of School District 210 employees, faculty, and staff.
b) Children of School District 210 students.
c) Children or grandchildren of retired school district employees, faculty, and staff.
d) Children of employees, faculty and staff from the following districts;
Considering the very first part of the contract claimed providing a day care “for its employees , students, and district residents is beneficial to its staff, students and community residents;”, one must ask, what benefit is there to the district and community residents if they are treated as a lower priority and charged more?
The contract for this day care operation states those 4 categories of kids get priority enrollment and pricing.
“Contractor agrees that students in groups 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d), shall receive a twenty percent (20%) reduction in the daycare tuition costs, fees and expenses charged by the Contractor.”
I believe that a person living in the district that does not fit into one of those categories is entitled to the same enrollment priority and pricing structure. It is their tax dollars being used and just because they don’t work at, or have worked at D210 they are treated differently.
Different fees for those in this district, paying taxes towards the district, violates our Constitutional Equal Protection clause, known as the 14th Amendment.
A good comparison to understand the application of the 14th Amendment can be found with Park Districts. Most charge nothing or a specific rate for residents, as they are paying the tax bill, and then a separate higher rate for non residents, because they are not paying the tax bill.
All taxpayers of the district must be treated equally considering this operation is made available by all those people paying the tax.
We have a LOT more to expose on this contract but one last thing that jumped out at me was who signed it!
“This Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and legally binding, after it is signed by the duly authorized officer of each party.”
Who is the duly authorized officer that can sign this contract on behalf of District 210? Anyone that the Board of Education authorizes, however, to date we have been unable to confirm the Board ever approved the signing of this contract, which was signed by none other than Lawarance Wyllie, the former superintendent that used tax dollars to teach dogs instead of kids without board approval. So far, nothing is found in the minutes but we are still researching and will update accordingly.
Please consider a donation.
[email protected]Posted at 22:44h, 16 January
This seriously ticks me off. As a parent who had to be put on a “waiting” list in 2009. This is unacceptable. I hope justice is eventually served.
Chris M. GainesPosted at 09:04h, 17 January
It amazes me of all these allegations were not brought up sooner rather than later at the District 210 Board meetings in public comments by residents of the District. It takes a couple guys from central Illinois to expose all this finally? Why didn’t someone within the District do this sooner? Amazing it went on this long. The blame is partially due to the fact the residents of District 210 didn’t participate in the process obviously.. Accept your responsibility for allowing this on your watch residents of District 210. Start by blaming yourself, not everyone else first. Be the change you want. We are our government. Period. If you don’t participate in it this is a good example of what happens apparently. Consider that please. Thank you. Have a nice day.
NormanPosted at 17:12h, 17 January
All of this stuff was hidden. I just read the school board meeting minutes from March and April 2013 and there is no mention of this. This board does not answer public comments at meetings. We have blamed ourselves for trusting these board members who are business leaders, friends and neighbors. To this day, there is no transparency. Budgets and board packets should be posted on the school website for people to see. Go watch some of the You Tube videos of meetings. There is one where a resident goes 10 seconds over his five minute allocated time and they have the police remove him from the meeting. We can’t change the past that is true but we can make damn sure it does not happen in the future.
Patricia MayPosted at 01:03h, 18 January
Oh brother, he’s back! Mr. Gaines, you know nothing about this school district, so stop hating on the people up here , and using us as a scapegoat for your own miserable problems.
MePosted at 21:07h, 11 February
Hey don’t give Kirk more credithan than he’s due. The Chicago Tribune first reported this in 2010. Nobody cared then. It only made the news now because Lincolnway is having to shutter a building because of declining enrollment.
apbPosted at 11:35h, 17 January
The important thing to remember is that it has now been exposed. Would it have been better if it was exposed sooner? Yes. It would have been best if it never happened. Time does not make a wrongful act right.
ChrisPosted at 12:42h, 17 January
I find this to be a very good program. It encourages students of teen pregnancy and staff with children to have a close, secure and reliable day care. This allows the district to be more competitive in its hiring of the best qualified teachers who may not take a job due to daycare costs or travel distance. As a taxpayer, this does not bother me in the least. It keeps teen moms in school, which is a long term advantage to all taxpayers. It encourages the best teachers to take jobs with the benefit of on site daycare. And lastly, the total cost to each tax payer, if broken down to each tax paying home and business, I would estimate in the 50-100 per year in total cost. As a father of a district child, I fully support a orogram of this nature. This is grasping at straws to try and find impropriety in a minimal cost factor, that has greater gains then the small fee it costs.
Patricia MayPosted at 00:50h, 18 January
Haha, “Chris”,,,,,nice try. “As a father of a district child”….???? Yeah right! You would know that District 210 doesn’t have any teen moms in this program if you were a legitimate “taxpayer” . Speaking of “impropiety”,,,,,,,keep your focus on your own problems, and get yourself a nice hobby, brother.
Kirk AllenPosted at 09:05h, 18 January
Chris, this is not about whether the program is a good one or not for the community. It is about a constitutional violation and points to a sweet heart deal for someone while others were never given the chance to even compete for the business.
SuePosted at 09:25h, 18 January
I have an issue with this. Rent free, utilities, garbage, water, taxes ect. All on taxpayer dime while the daycare reap the benifit? If there is nothing wrong with the district doing this then why hasnt this contract been approved in open meetings? Why didnt we ever start bidding for other daycares to have the same option? Heck, why cant we all just run our business at LW schools and have the taxpayers pay for it.
Chris M. GainesPosted at 09:55h, 18 January
Just to clarify…this comment by “Chris” was NOT made by me, obviously. But I think a child daycare (for students ONLY, especially low income households) for FREE or a sliding scale, within a school building (on site) is a great idea and should be implemented nationwide. It should be an housed, staffed and paid for completely by the school district taxes. It should NOT be a private business bid out by contact by the school district. But incorporated into the school curriculum as a daycare program to teach young families how to take care of their children properly. A learning program that is paid for by the school district like any other class available in a school. It’s a good thing if implemented properly. Consider that please. Thanks. Have a nice day.
NormanPosted at 17:05h, 17 January
Keep diggin Kirk! I am sure there is tons more to find.