 The two men were in attendance at the invitation of Mayor Keith
Snyder, after aldermen discussing the matter at last week's voting
session requested a joint meeting.
Also in the room were a number of crossing guards, who are
concerned about the future of the program. Not so much, they claim,
for themselves, but for the safety of the children they assist each
day along their routes to school.
One of the guards shared with the council information about grant
funding available through the Illinois Department of Transportation
to assist with some of the overhead costs of providing the guards.
Alderwoman Joni Tibbs questioned the guard who is responsible for
the crossing at Sherman and Keokuk, asking how many children crossed
daily at that intersection. The guard replied that on the average
there are seven to eight children. She also indicated that more
children cross after school than they do in the morning. She said
that in many cases parents drop their kids off at school on their
way to work in the morning, but the children are responsible for
walking home.
Questions also went to the guard who mans the intersection of
Eighth and Union. The guard said that particular crossing is heavily
used, with as many as 50 children crossing, especially in the
afternoons.
The guard also noted to the council that the area around Central
School and the junior high is a dangerous place for children because
of the careless behavior of some who drive through the area.
Snyder said the council had questions about the reason for the
immediate dismissal of the crossing guards, and he also had
questions about the cash reconciliation that had been provided by
District 27 Superintendent Mary Ahillen.
Snyder asked Rohrer to discuss the dismissal of the guards.
Rohrer said that when police Chief Ken Greenslate visited with
Ahillen in October of 2010, there was no conversation about the
school taking over the guards. Instead, he said, Greenslate had told
her there were going to be issues with money, and he wanted to talk
about using volunteers. Rohrer said at that time Ahillen told
Greenslate the use of volunteers was not possible.
Rohrer went on to say that the majority of the students in the
district are living at or below poverty level, with working parents
who do not have the time to volunteer to be crossing guards.
He went on to say that at a later time, Greenslate came to see
Ahillen at her office. Rohrer said Greenslate "popped into the
office and said something like, ‘I have good news: There is some
money for the crossing guard program, but I'm out of business.' That
is the first time we really knew this was being pushed off on us."
Rohrer said the issue really wasn't introduced to the school
board until sometime in August.
Snyder wondered if it hadn't happened earlier, as he recalled
that Ahillen had contacted Mike Geriets, deputy police chief, for
the names and other information on the guards before school started.
Rohrer said he didn't think Geriets got the information to her until
August, sometime shortly before school started.
Snyder asked Greenslate if he could tell the council when he met
with Ahillen in 2011. Greenslate said it was early on in the year,
during the budgeting process for the new fiscal year.
Snyder said the budget would have been approved in April for the
May 1 beginning of the fiscal year. Alderwoman Melody Anderson also
inserted that the budget meetings and planning for the new year were
well under way in March.
It would have been then that Greenslate advised Ahillen the city
had voted to turn the money over to the district via their annual
budget resolution.
Snyder then addressed Rohrer, clarifying that the guards had been
hired in August, but then it came before the school board in
September or October.
Kidd, who had remained seated at the back of the room, came to
the podium and explained that legally no one is hired at the school
until the board approves it. The guards were working and were being
paid, but legally they didn't work for the school because the issue
had not come before the board.
Alderman Jeff Hoinacki asked how that was done and if the money
they were given was considered a gift.
The answer came back that they were hired by the superintendent,
but they had not been legally hired by the board.
Rohrer said it had been done that way because of the school's
concern for the kids.
Hoinacki said, "But yet Nov. 3, you quit the program with no
respect for the kids."
Rohrer responded, "Frankly, we thought we were being strung along
and that we were not getting any resolution."
Snyder said, "We had a meeting on the 31st of October."
Rohrer responded, "Yes, we did. We were hoping for a resolution
at that meeting and it did not happen."
Snyder said there were some plans at the end of that meeting. The
city was going to follow up with the city treasurer to see if there
was any money to be found. Ahillen was to do some research on the
number of children using the crossings, which Snyder said the city
has not received that information to date.
Snyder said District 27 was going to have a discussion about
assuming partial responsibility. The suggestion had been that
District 27 is responsible for the crossing guards who were at
intersections where schools are located, and the city could assume
responsibility for the guards who are away from the school grounds.
In addition, the district was going to discuss a suggestion they
had brought to the meeting, which would involve sharing the cost of
the guards between the two entities.
Snyder said the items were also to go on the city's voting agenda
for Nov. 7.
Rohrer said the school board discussions did take place on Nov.
1.
Snyder said, "And that is when you decided there was not
sufficient progress."
Rohrer responded, "That is when the board decided to hold our
position; we are not going to hire the crossing guards. The program
is not our responsibility."
[to top of second column] |
City attorney Bill Bates then asked, "Where does it say it is the
city's?"
Rohrer said, "You've been doing it for years," to which Alderman
Tom O'Donohue said, "and you did it before us."
Chuck Conzo, city treasurer, then asked, "If it is not the
responsibility of the schools, why do so many schools do it?"
Rohrer responded, "Why do so many police departments and cities
do it?"
Conzo said he believed that in most cases the schools do take the
responsibility, but Rohrer disagreed, saying he believed most cities
handle the crossing guards.
At that point Kidd stepped into the conversation, saying, "I
think we've established that there is animosity here, and that is
not going to resolve the problem. We have talked at the board of
education about a way to resolve the problem as far as assuming part
of the financial responsibility."
Kidd and Snyder discussed the amount of money that is received by
the city through a special levy on property taxes. Currently the
city gets a 2-cent levy annually, which totals approximately
$15,000.
The cost of providing the crossing guards comes to approximately
$30,000 to $33,000 annually, not including administrative costs.
The suggestion is that the city and the school district split the
amount that exceeds the tax levy. Snyder said such a plan would then
leave the city holding about 75 percent of the tab. Kidd countered
that a portion of that comes from the levy, so it isn't truly an
expense for the city.
However, Snyder said the city is working under a tax cap, which
means there is very little increase in city revenues through
property taxes each year. If the city didn't have the special levy
for the guards, they could levy that 2-cent tax for their general
fund.
Ultimately then, the proposal is costing the city lost revenue
for the general fund plus the cash expense, which brings it back to
the city footing 75 percent of the bill.
Kidd said without arguing it further, the board was willing to
share in the cost.
Snyder talked about his suggestion that the school take
responsibility for the guards at the schools, with the city taking
responsibility for the others. He outlined the cost involved and
said it would be only slightly higher for District 27 than their
proposal.
The question was asked, if that would include the school assuming
administrative responsibility, and Snyder said yes.
Rohrer responded, "We rejected that. We're not going to do
anything based upon geography. All those (away from school areas)
are on your property."
Kidd, however, asked, "Keith, can you put that in writing?"
Snyder answered, "Sure. Your board president just said you
rejected it."
Rohrer then said, "This is your proposal I took to our meeting on
Nov. 1. The board rejected it."
Snyder asked, "For what reasons?"
Rohrer responded, "For the same reasons I've given you. Those
crossing guards are on city property."
Snyder then said, "You have no responsibility for children until
they are on school property. That is your position."
Kidd stopped the exchange, saying that yes, that comment had been
made, but the children are also citizens of the city of Lincoln. He
told Snyder if he would put his proposal in writing, they will take
it back to the board and it will be discussed.
Alderman David Wilmert also spoke about the situation, saying it
appeared that money was not as big an issue as who is responsible.
"We need to do more research," he said.
Wilmert expressed that there needed to be some kind of agreement
worked out to finish out this school year.
Kidd said communication between the district and the city has not
been good in this case. He also stated, "I know what the board
agreed to do, and financially this is pretty close."
Snyder said that for the remainder of the school year, the city
has only about $8,800 available for this expense. He said he had
figured that might pay for 4 1/2 crossing guards for the remaining
25 weeks of school.
Kidd also indicated there might be a need to take a look at the
crossings where there are only three or four children crossing, but
the comment was made that all the children are important.
There were also questions about how not legally hiring the guards
occurred in the first place.
It was previously stated that Ahillen hired the guards, or at
least allowed them to work without board approval. Alderwoman Stacy
Bacon asked if Ahillen had the authority to hire without board
approval and was told that she did not; she had made an error.
Kidd closed out the conversation by saying, "I was a
superintendent for 25 years, and I made a mistake or two myself."
Snyder will present his proposal in writing to the District 27
school board to share the cost by dividing the guards between those
near the schools and those away. The school board will meet tonight
and will discuss the proposal further.
The desired result is that the school and city will be able to
work together for remainder of this school year and explore other
options for coming years.
[By NILA SMITH]
 |
