↓ Archives ↓

Archive → October 13th, 2016

Homer 33C At the October 12th Finance & Operations Committee meeting

Summary of the Homer School District 33C

Finance & Operations Committee Meeting

October 12, 2016


            Barb Wilson, President      Angela Adolf, Vice President      Amy Blank, Secretary

    Deb Martin, Member    Ed Campins, Member    Elizabeth Hitzeman, Member    Russ Petrizzo, Member                                                                                       



At the October 12th Finance & Operations Committee meeting:

  • Christi Tyler, Interim Assistant Superintendent for Business, reviewed the District’s student fees and compared them to surrounding school districts (New Lenox 122, Frankfort 157C, Mokena 159 and District 92). Homer 33C’s fees, which were adjusted two years ago, fall in the middle. Committee members indicated the fees are sufficient but questioned the fees Homer 33C charges for participation in school clubs. They suggested a committee be formed to study the matter.


  • Tyler reviewed the 2016 Tax Levy and reminded committee members that a levy is what governing bodies ask for — not what they receive. Last year, Homer 33C sought a levy of 2.75 percent; it received 1.76 percent. This year, knowing construction is up, committee members plan to suggest that the District seek 2.87 percent. Member Petrizzo said it’s important to keep in mind that the District is not raising taxes 2.87 percent but simply trying to capture new construction.


  • Tyler reviewed Public Act 99-0604 — a new State law requiring school districts to adopt a policy setting parameters for reimbursement for travel on behalf of the District. Committee members agreed, after studying rates suggested by the Illinois Department of Central Management Services (CMS), to suggest the following rates to the full Board:
    • Breakfast, $10
    • Lunch, $12
    • Dinner, $25

The Board will need to adopt a formal policy by January 1, 2017.


  • Tyler reported questions have arisen about the District’s policy on staff fundraising. Several teachers and staff members have created DonorPerfect and GoFundMe sites, enabling them to raise money for specific classroom needs. While the District is appreciative of the donations, no one is tracking what requests are being posted, where the money is being funneled and whether the funds are being used for their intended purposes. There are even questions about who owns the items purchased with the donations — the District or staff members. She suggested the District establish procedures for the donations going forward.



The Next Regular School Board Meeting is October 25, 2016 at 7:30 p.m.



Source: Will County News

Illinois citizens on the budget

Much like Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and the Democratic-controlled General Assembly, Illinois voters remain divided over how to fix the state’s budget problems, according to a new Paul Simon Institute poll.

The survey of 1,000 registered voters, conducted Sept. 27 – Oct. 2, found 44 percent of respondents said they favor budget cuts, 12 percent prefer tax increases and 33 percent want a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts.

Voters also were asked whether the state’s budget impasse has personally affected their lives, to which 62 percent said the stalemate hasn’t, compared to 34 percent who said they were affected.

Dr. Linda Baker, a professor at the Simon Institute at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, said the findings show Illinoisans are aware that the budget crisis “is no longer an abstract question,” but instead a growing problem that is having a negative effect on the state’s ability to attract and retain both business and residents.


“One hopeful finding is the increased percentage of Illinoisans who see the solution as a mix of both budget cuts and increasing revenues,” Baker said. “Hopefully this can help spur policymakers on both sides of the aisle to consider a compromise that includes solutions offered by both parties.”

Among the voters who said the budget impasse was personally affecting their lives, 18 percent cited the gridlock in Springfield as the reason for losing or threatening their job. Another 15 percent perceived the stalemate to be the cause of cuts to social services, while 14 percent blamed it on cuts to K-12 education funding.

“I’m surprised more people aren’t feeling affected by this deadlock in Springfield. I thought the numbers of people impacted would be increasing as it wore on but it’s also true many people aren’t impacted by changes in government services,” said David Yepsen, director of the institute.

Here’s how the results break down by political party and region.


About the methodology:

The margin of error for the entire sample of 1,000 voters is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. This means that if we conducted the survey 100 times, in 95 of those instances, the population proportion would be within plus or minus the reported margin for error for each subsample. For subsamples, the margin of error increases as the sample size goes down. The margin of error was not adjusted for design effects.

Live telephone interviews were conducted by Customer Research International of San Marcos, Texas using the random digit dialing method. The telephone sample was provided to Customer Research International by Scientific Telephone Samples. Potential interviewees were screened based on whether they were registered voters and quotas based on area code and sex (<60% female). Interviewers asked to speak to the youngest registered voter at home at the time of the call. Cell phone interviews accounted for 60 percent of the sample. A Spanish language version of the questionnaire and a Spanish-speaking interviewer were made available.

Field work was conducted from September 27-October 2. No auto-dial or “robo” polling is included. Customer Research International reports no Illinois political clients. The survey was paid for with non-tax dollars from the Institute’s endowment fund. The data were not weighted in any way. Crosstabs for the referenced questions will be on the Institute’s polling web site, simonpoll.org.

Source: Will County News

The Podesta Emails Bernie Supporters, Catholicism, and Collusion with the State Department & Media

The Podesta Emails; Part One

Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta’s communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.

In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called “Uranium One” which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.

As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.

When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment’s review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as “baseless”.

Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).

In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: “Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): “John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign”.

Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that “Jose Fernandez has personally attested that ‘Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter’,” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.

The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: “Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I’m finding extremely rewarding.”

Julian Assange

Source: Will County News