A few issues to consider:

"...my two sons attended in the 1990’s. The education my family and friends received included...foreign languages..." I thought foreign language didn't come to D39 until 2005.

"The issue here is priorities, not capabilities." It's both--priorities AND capabilities. Food is a priority for me and my family, but if I am not making the salary I was making in 2003, we cannot expect to eat out every night at a 5-star restaurant. We simply cannot afford it. But if my family is willing to look at other ways to cut back on expenses, we will probably be capable of eating out at least 3 times a week. It seems to me this School Board and this Superintendent are unwilling to look at reconsidering some past decisions--like the 5.5% guaranteed yearly pay raises the WEA union wrested in December 2008, just three months after the financial and housing meltdown.

Point of clarification: the 2008 WEA contract was negotiated and agreed to by both sides in September 2008, with the fast-developing economic downturn coming on the heels thereof:
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/09/wilmette-school-district-approves-teachers-contract.html

Hindsight is 20-20, but with that being said, how exactly would the District go about "undoing" that contract unilaterally? In the absence of the WEA agreeing to open the contract, the time to deal with teacher salaries is in upcoming negotiations for a new 2013 contract.

WilmetteCares, check again. Because the time and date stamp on page 71 of the WEA Contract reads: 12/11/2008, 3:23pm beneath the signatures of Alan R. Dolinko, Raymond A. Lechner and the WEA President.

You don't explain how the District should go about "undoing" the contract unilaterally. How, exactly, might that be effectuated? Also, you may recall, WEA gave D39 a 10-day notice to strike on Sept 16 (http://www.wea39.org/formsletters/WEAauthorizedrelease9_16.pdf). From my memory, parents and the community at large were up in arms that a strike was imminent and a contract had not been reached. From the link in the post above, it was announced on Sept. 19 that a new agreement had been negotiated, with that agreement ratified by the WEA membership on Sept. 24. We can agree to disagree as to what date an agreement was legally binding based on the timeline of publicly-reported negotiations and meeting of the minds, and the date on which a document was stamped and filed.

It's called renegotiation. It's done all the time. You have to have the right people on the School Board & Administration to do it. Elementary School District 15 in Palatine is doing it, among others nationwide. (FYI, Palatine's pay raises were made with a much more sane step: 0.75% in year one, 1.19% in year two, and 1.39% in year three. )

And my memory is different from yours: the parents and the community were not "up in arms." The union leaders were.

BTW, even the article you cited notes the agreement from 2008 was "tentative."

And don't be silly--it's a faux defense to "agree to disagree". A contract is not legally binding until all parties to the contract sign it. Period.

I don’t know why Mr. Koch needed to take a gratuitous “shot” at Ali Elsaffar by calling him a “failed candidate for local office.” It was Mr. Koch, after all, who was president of the New Trier High School board during the decisively “failed” $174M referendum last year.

Yes, the language of the D39 ballot question is legally correct. But Mr. Koch fails to mention the inconvenient truth that a successful D39 referendum would give the board authority to raise taxes to some $49.2M, which would be a $12.9M, not $6.4M, increase, any non-binding “pledge” to the contrary.

So, here's the inconvenient question: Why in fact does the D39 referendum language allow twice the increase they “pledge” to impose? Just asking . . .

@midwestmom - U.S. Labor Laws govern collective bargaining agreements between unions and employers. In this context, a contract most certainly may be legally binding before it is signed -- for better or for worse. Period. It is an unfair labor practice not to sign a collective bargaining agreement if a meeting of the minds has been achieved. No need to belabor the point. And, I must disagree on your characterization of "agreeing to disagree" as a "faux defense". Two reasonable people can look at the same facts and draw different conclusions -- and they even can maintain respect for one another's right to a differing opinion. It's called civil discourse and debate.

Nope. Wrong again. Even union bosses know that until you sign a contract, it's not a done deal.

And as I look at the time stamp on my computer, 7:39am, I don't think you and I, reasonable people I imagine that we are, are going to look at that fact and draw a different conclusion. Unless, of course, you are in China. That's just called reality.

And speaking of reality, the reality of the rate of spending currently occurring in District 39 is unsustainable.

Mr. Koch seems to imply that the State Legislature did not want to include the equalizer (a factor of 3.37) in the ballot's financial disclosure. That is dead wrong. Here is a quote from the Wednesday Journal of Oak Park and River Forest, where the ballot story first broke on March 9 (this involves nine other districts besides D39):

"Chapman and Cutler [a law firm] ... decided the law did not specifically require inclusion of the multiplier. But Oak Park Sen. Don Harmon, who co-sponsored the law, says that's nuts since the clear intention of his law was to provide the voters a clear estimate of the financial impact of a referendum."

Mr. Koch is correct that Mr. ElSaffar did fail to get elected to the Oak Park Village Board. He did, however, get elected Township Assessor,where he has served for ten years, and was named Villager of the Year in 2006 by the same newspaper above.

In 2009, the district paid over $1 million to its top administrators (one superintendent, THREE assistant superintendent, and one business office) . It is ridiculous to pay such an amount to the overhead administration staff and at the same time complaining they are short of money. Each superintendents and business officer makes over $200,000 a year in this small district with merely 3000 students. Why we need THREE assistant superintendents on top of the five school principals? And who decide the salary of these superintendents? If you can afford to pay such salary to non-teaching staff in a school district, you should not cry poor and ask for more money.

The truth is, we have paid the school handsomely over the years. It is the school district keeps squander our tax money for years. It is time for them to learn how to balance the budget, just as the rest of us.

Vote No. Do not be scared by the school's scare tactics. Cut the assistant superintendents so you can hire more teachers.

Whatever the language,

Vote NO on the tax increase referendum !

Wilmette Cares,

Fascinating. The case you cite from 2002 in Eau Claire/Chippewa Falls (Wisconsin of all places!) where the court found the UNION "had violated by refusing to execute a contract it had negotiated with W.S. Darley & Company" says nothing about having "announced to the media that a tentative agreement had been reached", as you state. Their case is strikingly different on several fronts.

You presented a hypothetical from Sept 2008: how could D39 not fulfill the "tentative" agreement from Sept 28, 2008, after the WEA membership ratified it, although no contract had been signed. I'm no lawyer, but I would hope that since D39 is not a privately held company like Darley, but rather a public school district, using public taxpayer monies, a judge would have taken this into consideration, as well as the fact that in Sept 2008 the financial and housing meltdown that proved detrimental to the community, and ultimately the contract they were negotiating, would present exceptional circumstances to fulfilling a 5.5% guaranteed pay increase. You even recognized "with the fast-developing economic downturn coming on the heels thereof...", a contract this generous that was birthed in this climate was precarious from the start.

Only if correct means off by a factor of 330%. Legal does not mean correct. It means compliance with some law. There is no version of correct that says it is ok to put wrong information on a ballot.

Correct does not equal state mandated. The wording is state mandated, legal, and wrong.

If anyone wonders how Lehman Brothers could have went on for years doing the absolute wrong thing, while complying with the legal fiction that our politicians are regulating in our best interests, look no further than the D39 ballot.

Statement 2 on the ballot

*For the 2010 levy year the approximate amount of the additional tax extendable against property containing a single family residence and having a fair market value at the time of the referendum of $100,000 is estimated to be $58.80*

is known to be false, yet legal. The real number is 3.3x58.80 or $194.04. Everyone knows this, including Supt. Lechner and the Board....but it is not being presented to the voters....because it is "legal".

Everyone lies about accounting and finance, or as the pathological James Koch says the ballot is "absoultely correct", why not Wilmette?

All: Thanks to everyone for your contributions to this discussions group. While I may not have agreed with everyone on this blog, I have come to understand and appreciate all your perspectives. While the "YES" vote appears to have won the day, we need to understand and respect all points of view. There are many valid arguments from both sides of the debate that need to be integrated into the public policy of this community, including the concept of fiscal conservatism. Thank you to everyone who participated in this process. I appreciate your input and hope that you will continue to contribute to the process going forward.

Herb and Eva... sell your home and please move to another part of the city or a retirement home..... The people have voted to support our childrens education.. get lost