By George N. Schmidt

For more than a decade, Substance has obtained the Chicago Board of Education’s “Position File” under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The “Position Files” is the continuing record of all full-time and part-time employees. Information in the Position File includes the employee’s name, position number, unit, job title, annual salary, and amount paid to date. (Other information in the master file, such as Social Security Number, is redacted — deleted — from copies of the Position File provided under FOIA).

In March 2006, after we had acquired and begun analysis of the Position File (see the April 2006 Substance for some analysis of that document), Substance requested and received the vendor files going from fiscal year 2001 (the year Arne Duncan became CEO of CPS) and FY 2005 (the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2005). The complete vendor/consultant files for FT 2006 will not be available until after the fiscal year ends June 30, 2006, a little over a month from when this Substance is going to press.

Board denies resumes of executives. Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the qualifications of every classroom teacher become public information and are disseminated every year to parents. A teacher who is not “highly qualified” according to the NCLB guidelines becomes the subject of closer scrutiny by parents, and often the subject of ridicule by students. Because the subtle distinctions under which a teacher is declared “highly qualified” or not under NCLB are lost on youngsters, students who declare that their teachers are “too dumb” to be teaching a particular subject are not about to change their minds based on lengthy explanations. Similarly, ESPs have been required to meet more stringent standards in recent years. But the Chicago Board of Education has exempted two groups from public scrutiny, as the above letter shows. The Board refuses to provide the curriculum vitae or resume of its executives and principals under the Freedom of Information Act and has refused to change its position despite additional requests from Substance. The Board also allows many of its most expensive consultants and vendors to receive multi-million dollar contracts over periods extending into years without competitive bidding. Teachers, teacher assistants, and others working in the schools with children are presently subjected to some of the most intense scrutiny in history. The Board of Education’s executive class, which has been expanding since Arne Duncan took over in July 2001, has exempted itself from any review of its qualifications to run a school system. Ironically, the individual to whom the appear of the above decision is supposed to be addressed, Chief of Staff Hosannah Mahaley Johnson, is one of those who came to the Board of Education after various jobs at Chicago’s City Hall. She reportedly has no experience in education and no Illinois teaching or administrative qualifications.  

Deliberate disorganization

As reported in our Page One story on the vendor and consultant list in this Substance, the vendor and consultant file is as disorganized as the Position File is a model of organization. Entities and individuals, some of whom have received payments in excess of $1 million from the Chicago Board of Education, are listed in an odd melange of ways, ranging from alphabetical by first name (!) to partital abbreviations. The file also contains unusual notes at certain entries. Dozens of vendors and other contractors are listed at “addresses” on the upper floors of the Board of Educaton’s headquarters at 125 S. Clark St.

And for reasons no one will explain, a large number of entries are duplicated, making it difficult to ascertain whether they have been paid twice, or the double-entry is simply a data entry problem. [This same situation appeared in the Position Files published last month, and there has been no explanation as to why it takes place].

The entire vendors and consultant list document that Substance received consists of more than 4,000 lines on a spreadsheet, itemizing more than $800 million in expenses, and covering five full years.

Tip of a patronage iceberg?

Our editors and reporter spent more than a month trying to analyze the document and also trying to figure out what to present to our readers. We finally decided on highlights of some of the most unusual things about the Board’s use of consultants and other vendors, along with a complete list of all consultants and vendors paid during FY 2005 (the period between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2005).

The enormous chart that begins on Page Ten of this Substance and continues for 17 pages of analysis and (mostly) chart is the exact information wereceived in response to our request for a list of all consultants and vendors paid by the Chicago Board of Education during FY 2005. It has been edited only so that it fits on the page, and in a handful of instances the name of the individual or entity listed as having received the money has been reduced in length so that the entire chart could fit on the page.

The entire list is reproduced in this Substance, making this the longest financial list we have ever published. (We have published lists of school test scores that were as long, but never financial information).

The list published in this Substance does not include a companion list of vendors and consultants who were paid less than $10,000 per year during the same years. That list was provided to Substance and is still being analyzed. The two lists were provided separately because under current Board Rules, those who are contracted for amounts in excess of $10,000 are supposed to be reported in a Board Report at a public meeting, while amounts less than $10,000 at th epresent time do not require Board Reports.

Charter school costs hidden

One of the most surprising revelations that came as Substance and our allies began examining the vendor and consultant records was that the city’s growing number of charter schools were generally missing from the lists completely. Charter school staffs are not included in the Position files. Charter school costs are not itemized in the vendor and consultant files. Additionally, the capital costs of charter schools (the cost to the public of renting and maintaining buildings that house charter schools) is not itemized in the Board’s annual budget reports. Neither the “Proposed Budget” nor the “Final Budget” for FY 2005 even lists “Charter School” in their Tables of Contents or Glossaries.

How significant is cover up of charter school costs? Two examples: Chicago’s largest charter “school” now reports that it has a $1 million surplus of cash. Shouldn’t this be returned to the General Operating Fund of CPS? Another charter operator expanded in February. UNO will receive at least $11 million next year, according to the Board.

In June, the Chicago Board of Education is required to hold budget hearings. The May Board of Education meeting agenda announced that the hearings would be held on June 12, June 13, and June 14. At Substance press time, however, it was learned that the hearings had been postponed. Sources at the Board said that once again the Duncan administration cannot produce its “proposed” budget on time, and the delay might be longer than one week.