Ladies and Gentlemen,

Prior to the Aug 18th board meeting, I was told by both Dave Barclay and Katrine Maquire that the item on the agenda regarding the Superintendant's salary, involved correcting the language on his contract to synchronize his health insurance coverage with that of the teachers. This, on first blush, is hardly a fair and accurate description of what you did.

"AMEND SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT

Motion by Barclay, second by Ramsey to approve the amendment to the superintendent's contract to include a 3% increase in salary plus a one-time 1% increase in salary to offset medical insurance premiums, for the 2005-2006 school year. On roll call the following members voted aye: Barclay, Ramsey, Stibal, Lach, Scheck, Maguire. Nays: none. Motion carried: ayes 6, nays 0.

Motion by Barclay, second by Ramsey to approve the amendment to the superintendent's contract to specify the contribution for insurance premiums from 100% Board paid insurance to 90% Board paid in FY'06, 85% Board paid in FY'07, and 80% Board paid in FY'08. On roll call the following members voted aye: Barclay, Ramsey, Stibal, Lach, Scheck, Maguire. Nays: none.
Motion carried: ayes 6, nays 0."

I would appreciate answers from each or all of you to the following questions.

1. The 1% of salary increase for teachers was justified as a transitional compensation for their consession in their contract to change their contribution requirement. What is the cost of this for the lowest paid teacher, the average teacher, the median teacher and the highest paid teacher?
2. What is the dollar value of the 1% given to the Superintendant?
3. What is the dollar cost of the insurance package for the Superintendant?
4. What is the difference?
5. Did you have to ask the administration to provide these numbers? If so, when did you do so?
6. My understanding is that the Superintedant was in a 3 year contract at $125K per year. Was this extended or rolled over?
7. Multiple year contracts for school administrators must be performance based. (For your convenience, the text from the School Code is below.) All performance goals and improvement goals must be met prior to extension. Will you please list for me all such goals and what, if any, "indicator of student performance" was used to conclude the goal met? Please note, I am not requesting numerical or subjective evaluative appraisals of superintendent performance, but the specific aggregate student test results, portfolios, or exhibits presented to the board showing each goal met.

Your answers to these questions would be appreciated. It would be my intention to post your responses, just like this document, where citizens of West Chicago can read it.

Robert Lemon

(105 ILCS 5/10‑23.8) (from Ch. 122, par. 10‑23.8)

Sec. 10‑23.8. Superintendent contracts. After the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1997 and the expiration of contracts in effect on the effective date of this amendatory Act, school districts may only employ a superintendent under either a contract for a period not exceeding one year or a performance‑based contract for a period not exceeding 5 years.
Performance‑based contracts shall be linked to student performance and academic improvement within the schools of the districts. No performance‑based contract shall be extended or rolled‑over prior to its scheduled expiration unless all the performance and improvement goals contained in the contract have been met. Each performance‑based contract shall include the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement determined and used by the local school board to measure the performance and effectiveness of the superintendent and such other information as the local school board may determine.