|
Post by title1parent on May 22, 2010 17:15:27 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2298724,6_1_NA21_D204_S1-100521.article District 204 pushes idea of 'deadbeat' state May 21, 2010 By KATHY CICHON kcichon@stmedianetwork.com Hoping to change state law to allow the school district to legally withhold income tax payments from Springfield, Indian Prairie District 204 will consider a resolution urging lawmakers to approve a "deadbeat amendment." "As expected, our attorney has confirmed that current law prevents us from taking such action," Board President Curt Bradshaw said earlier this week. "The next step is working with the state Legislature to pass an amendment to that law." In April, Bradshaw proposed withholding those payments as long as the state is delinquent on its payments to the district. District 204 pays Illinois between $5 million and $6 million a year in state income taxes, with about $500,000 sent every month. "Currently, school districts are forwarding millions in income tax payments to the same entity that is behind $1.4 billion in payments to school districts," Bradshaw said. "Allowing school districts to 'set-off' income tax payments due the state against amounts owed by the state to school districts will provide school districts critical funding and lessen the impact of past-due payments on district operations." Bradshaw will draft a resolution urging the state to pass a "deadbeat amendment" to allow districts to withhold the tax money. "The district may also choose to seek support from the other school boards in the state by proposing a new position statement for the Illinois Association of School Boards," Bradshaw said. Last month, Susan Hofer, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Revenue, told the Sun that when an employer withholds money from its staff's salaries, the employer is holding it on behalf of the employee. The employer serves as the agent to send the money to the state on behalf of the employee, who trusts the employer to do so, she said. "Payroll taxes are not the employer's money," Hofer said. "They come from the employee's paycheck." Val Dranias, president of the Indian Prairie Education Association, said Wednesday she understands where Bradshaw is coming from, but has concerns about any consequences. "My concern would be what would be the ramifications to the employee and District 204 if that money was held back," she said. She worries the employees would be subject to fees or possible jail time because their obligations to the state have not been paid. '"It's our income tax they're sending in," Dranias said.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 2, 2010 11:22:19 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=385100Dist. 204 prez pushing ahead with plan to withhold state tax payments By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald 6/2/10 Indian Prairie school board President Curt Bradshaw appears to be pushing forward with his plan to withhold monthly payroll tax payments to the state department of revenue -- even though district officials already have paid their attorneys $1,520 to tell them it's illegal. And support from some of his fellow Unit District 204 board members also appears to have fallen by the wayside. In an e-mail sent Friday to board members, Bradshaw presented a draft ordinance he prepared for the Illinois Association of School Boards to include as part of its legislative initiative. "The state has consistently delayed payments to school districts as a means of financing its budget shortfalls (as of May 2010, the state is behind $1.4 billion in payments to school districts). This practice negatively impacts the financial operation of school districts. In addition, many school districts are forced to incur substantial borrowing costs to make up the funding shortfall," he wrote in the resolution. "Currently, school districts are forwarding millions in income tax payments to the same entity that is behind $1.4 billion in payments to school districts. Allowing school districts to setoff income tax payments due the state against amounts owed by the state to school districts will provide school districts critical funding and lessen the impact of past-due payments on district operations." He then solicited comments from board members. "I would like to put this on the consent agenda for June 7 and work out any kinks beforehand so we don't need to use meeting time discussing it," he wrote. "Are you supportive of this as is, or are there any changes you believe are necessary?" Early replies from his peers were less than supportive. "I'd like to see a few things thought about first. I'm not saying one way or the other until we discuss it further," Cathy Piehl said. "I want to understand what objections there could be to us going forward with this and I want to make sure we don't look silly in the process." Dawn DeSart has opposed the initiative since it was first discussed. She said she thought the proposal originally was said in jest and she's not about to let up now that she knows Bradshaw is serious. "To me it's a waste of time and money (in legal fees for our taxpayers). The resolution will never happen, nor should it. It's not our money. It's our employees' earnings being withheld for tax purposes," she said. "In fact, our employees are entitled to receive any overpayments back in the form of a tax refund." Christine Vickers called the resolution "ridiculous" and "unconscionable." "I am unwilling to take a personal or professional risk for this particular challenge nor do I believe it is within our legal authority to pursue this type of action against other governmental agencies albeit local, state or federal," Vickers said Tuesday. "This is an unfounded battle destined to be lost." For more board reaction check back at dailyherald.com or read Thursday's Daily Herald.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 3, 2010 4:55:30 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=385303&src=76Press association questions District 204 e-mail chain By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald 6/2/2010 While Indian Prairie school board members debate the wisdom and legality of board President Curt Bradshaw's payroll tax setoff plan, the Illinois Press Association has weighed in on another aspect of the proposal. Interim Director of Government Relations Josh Sharp said Bradshaw may have violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the state's Open Meetings Act by attempting to garner the support of other Unit District 204 board members outside of public view. Sharp reviewed the e-mail Bradshaw sent to individual board members and said such efforts to formulate policy outside the public view raises red flags. "I would like to put this on the consent agenda for June 7 and work out any kinks beforehand so we don't need to use meeting time discussing it," Bradshaw wrote to fellow board members concerning his legislative proposal. Sharp said Bradshaw would have been better served picking up the phone, but the public is better served by open debate at board meetings. "Working out kinks and discussion to gather consent is precisely what meeting time is for," Sharp said Wednesday. "Those conversations are not suited for an e-mail chain that may or may not be a violation of the Open Meetings Act." Neither Bradshaw nor the school district's attorneys responded to calls Wednesday for their opinions on Sharp's comments, but Sharp did not hesitate to reiterate his. "If you're asking me if this e-mail, even if only sent to individual board members, is a violation, again I say yes," Sharp said. "And it's certainly no way to run a school board."
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 8, 2010 7:36:43 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=386443&src=76Dist. 204 sends plan to keep taxes to state board By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald 6/8/10 The Illinois Association of School Boards soon will receive a rather controversial resolution, courtesy of Indian Prairie Unit District 204. Board members Monday night, by a 3-2 vote, asked the association to add President Curt Bradshaw's plan to withhold monthly payroll tax payments to the state department of revenue to its annual legislative agenda. Indian Prairie is currently owed $14.4 million in back payments from the state. Bradshaw called the resolution a collaborative solution rather than a hostile solution and reiterated his belief that the district has a responsibility to find a solution rather than be a victim. "Currently, school districts are forwarding millions in income tax payments to the same entity that is behind $1.4 billion in payments to school districts," Bradshaw wrote in his draft resolution. "Allowing school districts to set off income tax payments due the state against amounts owed by the state to school districts will provide school districts critical funding and lessen the impact of past-due payments on district operations." Several board members initially thought Bradshaw was joking when he first brought the plan forward last month. By Monday night's vote, some, including Cathy Piehl, came around to his way of thinking, while others, like Dawn DeSart and Christine Vickers were pushed further away. "As you got more serious (about the resolution), I got concerned that it was trying to circumvent the whole budgetary process of the legislature," Piehl said. "But I've come to realize that by setting something like this up, it actually puts a checks and balances in place with our government." Former IASB president and current Indian Prairie board member Mark Metzger said the action gives the association lobbyists a "theme to go back to." "In addition to creating an interesting and clever solution to the financial problem the school district's face, it gives our lobbyists a very effective way to keep a message in front of the General Assembly as they work on the rest of the bills," Metzger said. "Even if this weren't the best idea in the world, the fact that it gives an ongoing conversation is itself a valuable tool." DeSart, however, said she couldn't be more opposed to moving forward with the resolution. "I believe this setoff resolution is shortsighted and ill-conceived. It's a slippery slope that if completely thought out, I believe most would come to that same conclusion," DeSart said before pondering where the state would get money if every district did withhold the taxes. "This is not our money. It's the money our employees owe the state of Illinois in the form of taxes." Vickers voted against moving forward as well, saying she is afraid of "opening the can of worms." "It's not just about school districts. This is about all the other agencies that are benefactors of state monies, and if one segment of the benefactors decide they want to make an action against the legislation, everyone else could follow the same avenue," Vickers said. "To me that perpetuates an already very poor situation that we have in the state." IASB Associate Executive Director Ben Schwarm said last week that once a final draft is submitted, the proposed resolution will be researched and eventually brought before the body's resolution committee. If the committee approves the resolution, it will go before a vote of more than 900 statewide school districts at the association's annual November conference. That chance alone was enough for Susan Rasmus to support it. "If there's this much of a chance, why aren't we trying it?" Rasmus said. "What's the cost to us?" Plan: Supporters say resolution at least sparks discussion
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 8, 2010 12:29:03 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=386443&src=76..... Board members Monday night, by a 3-2 vote, asked the association to add President Curt Bradshaw's plan to withhold monthly payroll tax payments to the state department of revenue to its annual legislative agenda. Indian Prairie is currently owed $14.4 million in back payments from the state. Bradshaw called the resolution a collaborative solution rather than a hostile solution and reiterated his belief that the district has a responsibility to find a solution rather than be a victim. ...... IASB Associate Executive Director Ben Schwarm said last week that once a final draft is submitted, the proposed resolution will be researched and eventually brought before the body's resolution committee. If the committee approves the resolution, it will go before a vote of more than 900 statewide school districts at the association's annual November conference. ......... Plan: Supporters say resolution at least sparks discussion The SB action here definitely is one of collaborative solution seeking. Our district is taking this up-the-ladder to the next step, having a state wide SD discussion on this. 204 is not going off alone on this. Lets see what the IASB resolution committee thinks of this, then if it passes them what the other 900 SD's think. Its hard to argue with CV and DD that there is a "slippery slope" aspect to this. But that can always be an excuse for timidity, I suppose. Of course there is another slippery slope we citizens are caught up in: when the state passes a budget for various state support and then fails to deliver that support. There is a boldness to this resolution, certainly. As some of the supporters are alluding to....this may end up being more of a political tool "to spark discussion" and not an actual in-place policy. I believe some state law would have to be passed for this to ultimately happen...and that would never pass out of Springfield.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 8, 2010 19:19:36 GMT -5
G-dog, this idea of not paying withholding taxes is wrong on many levels. A) our district is not in any legal position to consider this type of action. B) The precedent it sets for things in the future such as: social security and medicare is near bankruptcy, why not just stop paying into these systems? C) Is this real leadership and is this the type of move we want to show our children, I think not.
This is just more crap to take the eyes of the average voter away from major issues affecting our district. Both commercial and residential real estate has dropped in value by 20% plus in the last 2 years which will indeed be troublesome in the near future. We have an expanding budget with a decreasing revenue source: address this much more troublesome issue. Address the problem of "even considering" a referendum in these tough times. Address the idea that we as a district have been living in financial "la la land" for better part of a decade.
The small impact regarding the state funds is a "drop in the bucket" compared to the headwinds that are close at hand. Why this goofiness is even considered news worthy is difficult to comprehend.
I do want to thank the teachers and support staff for their courageous vote in accepting the new contract, I can only wonder what their thoughts are regarding the board's decision to continue on with this lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 9, 2010 6:24:53 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2370480,6_1_NA09_D204_S1-100609.article D204 to back deadbeat amendment June 9, 2010 By KATHY CICHON kcichon@stmedianetwork.com After a lengthy -- and at times tense -- debate, the Indian Prairie Board of Education agreed to push for a "deadbeat amendment" to Illinois law that would allow it to withhold income tax payments as long as the state owes it money. The board voted 4-2 to send the Illinois Association of School Boards a resolution for consideration that would allow school districts to "'set-off' income tax payments due to the state against amounts owed by the state to school districts." Voting in favor of the resolution were President Curt Bradshaw, Mark Metzger, Cathy Piehl and Sue Rasmus. Voting against the resolution were Dawn DeSart and Christine Vickers. Board member Alka Tyle was absent. "It would be creating a mechanism in which we can offset the money that we owe the state against the greater amount that they owe us," said Bradshaw, who suggested the idea in April. "At the core it's a very simple idea. In fact it's one that is common within business. And all we're talking about is really expanding a practice that's common in business into government." The state owes District 204 $14.4 million. The district recently received a $1.5 million payment for the fourth quarter, but is still owed more fourth quarter funds, as well as money from the second and third quarters. While Bradshaw called it a "common-sense idea," DeSart called it "short-sighted and ill-conceived." "The more I thought about it, the more I completely disagree with this idea," DeSart said. "... This is not our money. It's the money our employees owe the state of Illinois." DeSart said there is no threshold suggested for withholding the funds. She also worried about the effects of multiple school districts keeping money from a state that's already billions of dollars in debt. The results, she said, could be "frightening." Vickers agreed, saying the idea "just continues to perpetuate a very poor situation that we have here in our state." She expressed concerns about other agencies then wanting to withhold payments if the state owed them money. And she wondered if residents would then look to withhold property tax money if they are not happy with their governmental services. "I just think it opens a broad can of worms, in the state and nationally," Vickers said. "It's a novel idea, for sure. But it's a little too far outside the box." But Metzger said pushing for such an amendment gives lobbyists "a very effective way" to keep the message in front of the General Assembly. "This allows the school board association lobbyists to have a theme to continue to go back to as they meet with legislators throughout the next session. To remind them that school districts have not been treated correctly in this context," Metzger said. "... The fact that it gives an ongoing conversation is itself a valuable tool." Piehl said such an amendment would keep pointing the finger back at the fact school districts are owed money. "It actually puts a check and balances in place with the government and our public because it kinda says, 'Hey, you can't just say you promise to give us the money, you actually have to (give it to us) or else we can do something about it,'" Piehl said.
|
|
|
Post by incognito on Jun 9, 2010 11:46:20 GMT -5
If this were to pass and say teacher A is due a refund from the state on her tax return, I would guess the state won't refund it, but District 204 would? If this passes, and I am an employee of 204, I would be darned sure my Illinois Income tax is more than my withholding..... I don't see any refunds in this scenario....
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 9, 2010 12:02:07 GMT -5
If this were to pass and say teacher A is due a refund from the state on her tax return, I would guess the state won't refund it, but District 204 would? If this passes, and I am an employee of 204, I would be darned sure my Illinois Income tax is more than my withholding..... I don't see any refunds in this scenario.... OK, i am way out of my league in that I am not a tax accountant.... but hypothetically if such a thing did come to pass and state tax law changed (chances of this being extremely low nil)....I myself envision some kind of special tax credit for a SD employee on their income tax. Thus, even though less taxes were withheld, they come out 'even" on Apr 15 since they get direct credit for the state taxes that the SD did not send to Springfield. So to the first order, my feel is that it would change little on the employees refund or payment. A tax expert question: arent there other categories of people that get special tax credits which means they can have less withholdings for state taxes during the year? Possible examples: military? farmers? rail-road pensioners?.... ?
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 9, 2010 12:58:12 GMT -5
G-dog, this idea of not paying withholding taxes is wrong on many levels. First off, SSSM, I think in general you are over-reacting here. No doubt there are negatives to the idea. Thats how ideas work....they have pros and cons. Yes, there are things "wrong" with the idea that would have to be considered and worked upon. But the vote before the SB the other night was NOT to withhold paying taxes. It was to further the discussion at the state level with other SDs. I see nothing wrong with that. This is now out of 204's hands. Of course we all know this is true. That is why the resolution is for SDs to consider asking the state legislature to make possible changes to the law. Not all ideas for state laws originate in Springfield!! You have a point here. It would be something to consider. But if you can make a broad general leap I can make one too: a basic concept of our union is that state's have lots of sovereignty, with the idea that experimentation in different ways of governing is a good thing, not something to shy away from, worried about "bad precedent." Here is where you really lose me, SSSM. What is there about this idea that we have to 'hide the eyes of our children from" ? Goodness! Look, CB came up with a creative, brainstorming, possible solution. One he directly derived from the business world. A perspective much needed at all levels of government. He brings it into a world of much entrenched state government power, which in my mind takes a large amount of political courage. He is NOT thinking like a bureaucrat ("the rules are the rules are the rules!"). He is NOT thinking like a politician ("I am too scared to stick my precious neck out with other politicians, I might make them mad."). . You may not agree with the idea, any of us may have doubts about the idea. But how in the world can you say this is not real leadership? To me, I would point children to what CB is doing as an example of just that, real leadership. (it wouldnt be the first time I have done that) I will directly ask you: Do think CB is specifically doing this to 'distract' us from other problems? I dont. A person creatively comes up with an idea. He directly puts it out there. And then he is blasted as having a "hidden motive"? Well.....this is 204, we know that will usually be the case! I hate this premise: woe to you SB members who offer creative ideas....for they shall be dissected for hidden agendas! Sure, it would be interesting to know their thoughts. They can pass them along to the ISAB perhaps. I think there is a hint of something here that I disagree with: the SB cannot consider ideas that "might make the union mad". I dont want a SB to be too constrained in their thinking.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Jun 10, 2010 19:09:27 GMT -5
G-dog I will split up your concerns and answer as time permits. "This is just more crap to take the eyes of the average voter away from major issues affecting our district......Why this goofiness is even considered news worthy is difficult to comprehend." I believe there are much larger issues that need attention asap in our district. For instance the 16 million is important but a drop in the bucket when compared to the situation our district faces on the income side of it's statement. As I look at my own real estate taxes I see that the difference between worth and assessed value is now eclipsing 20%. This does not take into consideration the foreclosure and short sales that will put added pressure (downward), in the near and mid term. As if this is not enough I am presently making for rent signs for local commercial and retail businesses that are at 1995 rent levels. My concern is how long will it take for good tax attorneys to have the value of these properties reduced. Now in reality our district will not have a serious issue in the short term as the tax factor on the property owner will just be increased. The problem in the mid to long term is there will be little if any chance to get a much needed referendum passed when the average homeowner sees his tax rate get into the 2.9% to 3.5% of average assessed value, especially when the homeowner reviews his tax statements and see what has happened in a few short years. Combine this massive impending increase in tax rate with a stagnate income rate and there is much reason to be concerned. Add to the equation a very stagnate economy, and a decade or more before the next "mini boomer generation" comes into maximum earning potential, and it is rather obvious that the idea of holding onto state witholding taxes is a complete waste of time. G-dog if I may make a suggestion go to www.willcountysoa.com, look up any recent sold property Tall grass, Ashbury, Breckenridge, or the vast unincorporated area. Note the selling price and then go look at the assessed value, the difference is very noticeable. After you note the trend on a few sold homes then look at the short sales and foreclosures, the difference between selling rate and assessed value can be up to 40%. G-dog, If I was the board it may be time to look at reality and realize that it is time to work with state leaders and stop this very narrow minded idea. More later.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Jun 11, 2010 18:25:14 GMT -5
...... I believe there are much larger issues that need attention asap in our district. For instance the 16 million is important but a drop in the bucket when compared to the situation our district faces on the income side of it's statement. ....... ..... ...... G-dog, If I was the board it may be time to look at reality and realize that it is time to work with state leaders and stop this very narrow minded idea. More later. 'maker, that is a great, well-thought out summary. There are are economic issues facing us locally, state-wide, nationally. And I have to say, thinking ahead and wanting the SB to plan for various future scenarios, makes me more frustrated with what the state recently did to 204 and other school districts. If attention and effort is being diverted from mid to long range issues, THAT is the the main cause....not CB's resolution. Look, I admit CB's resolution is Don Quixote-esque. Initially, I skeptically thought that it is 'too far out of the box' too. But as I thought more, I admire the creativity to it. And yes, there is a "fight fire with fire" element to it, which has an appeal. I hope CB continues with adding his creative insight.
|
|