Monday, November 14, 2011

Funding in place, McHenry County moves to fill vacant regional superintendent’s office


The one candidate who met all the qualifications wanted to keep his current education job as well to earn a salary, but backed out because the law forbids regional superintendents from holding any other employment….

McHenry County joined other governments and their lobbying groups in opposing the funding bill out of fear that the move will open the door to the cash-strapped state skimming more from shared revenues.

State Rep. Mike Tryon, R-Crystal Lake, voted for the bill, while Reps. Jack Franks, D-Marengo, Kent Gaffney, R-Lake Barrington, and Sen. Dan Duffy, R-Lake Barrington, opposed it. Sen. Pamela Althoff, R-McHenry, missed the vote because of a family emergency.

The Lake County Regional Office of Education has been helping McHenry County fulfill the office’s statutory duties.

Click on the following for more details:

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Interesting Items on Belvidere District 100 CPA Audit—do they deserve questioning?

The complete District 100 Audit is available at:$file/2011+Financial+Statements+District+100.pdf

Page 82District is still not balancing its checking account to the general ledger—This is a significant deficiency—See below statement from the Auditor’s Management Letter (page 3) defining this term.

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in the internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or be material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs that we consider to be significant deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting. Findings 11-03 has been identified as significant deficiency. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Click on the photocopy to enlarge:



In an October 11, 2011 memo to the Board of Education, Mr. Brown had the following comment.



If the check book did not reconcile with ledger on June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2011 when did they become properly reconciled?  if the financials provided the audit team by management on the above audit dates did not reconcile how do we know that the accounts are now reconciled each month?  Management certainly did not supply the audit team financials that they “knew”did not reconcile to the checking account.

Mr. Brown states that amounts were “immaterial”. What is the amount?  Why not provide a formal reconciliation of the difference.

See the “corrective action” shown above.  12-1-2011 is the anticipated date of the corrective action. Is this in conflict with Mr. Brown’s Memo to the Board of Education?  The management reaction in 2010, see Findings 10-1 below indicated that monthly reports would be reviewed for accuracy.  Why then was the June 30, 2011 financials for the auditors not accurate?

This item regarding not balancing the district’s checking account was previously posted in 2010 at: and at:

Did the CPA firm really handle this item properly?  The following is Schedule 15 where the accounting firm  indicates that finding 10-1 from last year is resolved yet they list the same item as a 11-3 finding in the current audit(see above) and indicated that the item was reported in the prior year. The 10-1 finding is shown below the wording is only slight different.


2010 Audit—Finding 10-1

2010 audit 1

Page 49—District 100’s increasing debt costs for the upcoming years.


Page 45—Last year the District paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars($234,224) because some district retirees’ salary increases for the last years before retirement exceed the 6% limit.  There was no such expense last year. Is a further explanation needed?   Will this occur next year as well?



Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Cary District 26 unanimously approves 3-year contract with CEA

For all teachers not in the retirement pipeline, the contract includes a three-percent pay cut in the 2011-12 school year and a pay freeze in the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years…..

The new contract also changes the employee insurance program. Under the 2008-11 agreement, the board paid 100 percent of single coverage and between 20 and 40 percent of family coverage depending upon a teacher’s years of service in the district.

Under the agreement approved Tuesday, the district will pay 50 percent of single coverage and between 10 and 40 percent of family coverage.

Click on the following for the complete story: